They have a reasonable case. The idea of "independent federal agencies" that make substantive policy, are immune to democratic control, and also get to play-act as pseudo judicial bodies is a constitutional abomination.
Read this and do better https://constitution.findlaw.com/article1/annotation03.html.
https://reason.com/2023/11/13/gun-hobbyists-and-liberty-win-...
Agencies cannot make law. SCOTUS has repeatedly said congress cannot delegate legislative authorities to other agencies. That they do it anyway does not make it constitutional.
> On what basis do you believe Congress is not allowed to delegate any power.
.... provides link proving point ...
> Agencies don't make law.
So you agree with me? What do you think the legislative branch of the government does besides legislate? Many times these agencies have overstepped their bounds, they are only rarely challenged on their unconstitutional behavior - lawsuits being hard and expensive. Some people even condone this unconstitutional behavior because it furthers their agenda.
Here's a better link: https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S1-4-1/A...
The joke processes that NRLB has setup are the source of its own demise. If they simply follow the law and didn't make up quasi-judicial proceedings they might be fine. Like many agencies before them, the NRLB will be taken to court, the court will find that _yet another agency_ has been assuming the authority delegated to congress by the Constitution, and they will be reversed.
Maybe you can explain why that won't happen? It sounds like SpaceX has a strong case here.
Let’s do some role playing…
“It’s not a law, it’s a rule”
“Who made the rule?”
“The government…”
“What happens if I break the rule?”
“You could be fined or subjected to greater penalties…”
“Who enforces that?”
“The government…”
Now, let’s switch a couple of words around and see if it changes the meaning at all…
“It’s not a rule, it’s a law”
“Who made the law?”
“The government…”
“What happens if I break the law?”
“You could be fined or subjected to greater penalties…”
“Who enforces that?”
“The government…”
Seems pretty interchangeable to me.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_agencies_of_the_Un...
I always find it weird when people make statements like yours, full of confidence that what they are saying is the way everything is and should be, when they are literally completely and utterly wrong. What you have is an opinion of how you think the government should be run, based on your interpretation of the constitution. The reality is that the Supreme Court thinks your interpretation is wrong, and since they're the deciding factor that means your interpretation is wrong.
https://www.npr.org/2020/06/29/884958645/supreme-court-rules...
The non-delegation doctrine exists, but independent agencies survive because its administrators are Presidentially appointed and Congressionally confirmed, and other factors. Other commenters have rightfully also pointed out that you probably have more chance to engage in the democratic process with an independent agency, which also tend to have greater representation from the political party not in control of the Presidency.
It would be correct to say that there are new attacks on the administrative courts systems and extent of deference to administrative rulemaking. But you're wrong about independent agencies.
The case in question isn't about whether independent agencies can exist or not. The claim is that the way the panel is appointed is not constitutional. If they win the case then it would simply require the board to be appointed in a more specific way.
> SpaceX in its lawsuit claims that, because federal law only allows board members and administrative judges to be removed for cause, and not at will, the NLRB’s structure is unconstitutional. The lawsuit seeks to block the NLRB case from moving forward.
There's also a second claim that they should be allowed a jury trial.
> In its lawsuit, however, SpaceX claims that the NLRB proceedings violate the company’s “constitutional right to trial by jury.”
The constitutionality of the agency itself isn't what's being discussed.
No one would have an issue if the board and officers were fireable by the president at will, like they are at say the CIA or EPA, and if they had to actually go to court to allege violations of the law.
The allegations are legal soup anyway. The NLRB made up on the spot that criticism of the CEO was protected speech. There's nothing to say other than "you just made up that rule".