

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) speaks at the Fighting Oligarchy rally in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania on May 2, 2025.
Sanders charged that the ruling gave "Elon Musk... and other union busters the absolute power to exploit workers and violate labor law with impunity."
US Sen. Bernie Sanders on Wednesday evening warned that a ruling by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, which struck down a law that shielded National Labor Relations Board judges from being fired at will by the White House, would give union-busting employers yet another advantage in a legal system that is already stacked in their favor.
As Reuters reported, the appeals court ruled that protections for administrative judges at the board were unconstitutional impediments to the president's ability to run the executive branch as he sees fit.
"This is what oligarchy looks like," Sanders wrote in a post on X. "Today, two Trump judges ruled that the NLRB's structure is unconstitutional giving [SpaceX CEO] Elon Musk, worth $410 billion, and other union busters the absolute power to exploit workers and violate labor law with impunity. This disastrous decision cannot stand."
Circuit Judge Don Willett, a Trump appointee, wrote that "because the executive power remains solely vested in the president, those who exercise it on his behalf must remain subject to his oversight," meaning that the president should have more power to dismiss judges.
As a result of the ruling, National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) cases against SpaceX, pipeline operator Energy Transfer, and social services search engine Aunt Bertha have for now been put on hold, although NLRB is expected to appeal the ruling.
California-based law firm CDF Labor Law explained that, under the 1935 National Labor Relations Act, the president could only fire NLRB board members for "neglect of duty or malfeasance in office," and could only remove NLRB administrative judges for "good cause" after undergoing a hearing conducted by a separate agency.
New York-based labor attorney Benjamin Dictor warned that this ruling could ultimately leave the US labor movement with little recourse when employers violate workers' rights.
"Right now, the NLRB is the only federal body that investigates unfair labor practices, certifies unions, and compels bargaining. If it's defunct, there is no backup system," wrote Dictor. "That means workers fired for union activity? No remedy. Employers refusing to bargain? No consequences. Organizing elections? Suspended indefinitely."
If federal courts eventually rule that the NLRB is unconstitutional, he added, "it won't just be a US labor crisis. It could put the US out of compliance with its obligations under international law."
He then explained that the US has obligations as a member of the International Labor Organization (ILO) and that gutting NLRB would throw international labor standards into chaos.
"In ILO terms, that's the US failing to ensure even basic compliance with freedom of association and collective bargaining standards," he said. "It's not just a domestic constitutional question. It's the US signaling to the world that workers' rights are optional—and that's exactly what the ILO was created to prevent... The stakes are global."
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
US Sen. Bernie Sanders on Wednesday evening warned that a ruling by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, which struck down a law that shielded National Labor Relations Board judges from being fired at will by the White House, would give union-busting employers yet another advantage in a legal system that is already stacked in their favor.
As Reuters reported, the appeals court ruled that protections for administrative judges at the board were unconstitutional impediments to the president's ability to run the executive branch as he sees fit.
"This is what oligarchy looks like," Sanders wrote in a post on X. "Today, two Trump judges ruled that the NLRB's structure is unconstitutional giving [SpaceX CEO] Elon Musk, worth $410 billion, and other union busters the absolute power to exploit workers and violate labor law with impunity. This disastrous decision cannot stand."
Circuit Judge Don Willett, a Trump appointee, wrote that "because the executive power remains solely vested in the president, those who exercise it on his behalf must remain subject to his oversight," meaning that the president should have more power to dismiss judges.
As a result of the ruling, National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) cases against SpaceX, pipeline operator Energy Transfer, and social services search engine Aunt Bertha have for now been put on hold, although NLRB is expected to appeal the ruling.
California-based law firm CDF Labor Law explained that, under the 1935 National Labor Relations Act, the president could only fire NLRB board members for "neglect of duty or malfeasance in office," and could only remove NLRB administrative judges for "good cause" after undergoing a hearing conducted by a separate agency.
New York-based labor attorney Benjamin Dictor warned that this ruling could ultimately leave the US labor movement with little recourse when employers violate workers' rights.
"Right now, the NLRB is the only federal body that investigates unfair labor practices, certifies unions, and compels bargaining. If it's defunct, there is no backup system," wrote Dictor. "That means workers fired for union activity? No remedy. Employers refusing to bargain? No consequences. Organizing elections? Suspended indefinitely."
If federal courts eventually rule that the NLRB is unconstitutional, he added, "it won't just be a US labor crisis. It could put the US out of compliance with its obligations under international law."
He then explained that the US has obligations as a member of the International Labor Organization (ILO) and that gutting NLRB would throw international labor standards into chaos.
"In ILO terms, that's the US failing to ensure even basic compliance with freedom of association and collective bargaining standards," he said. "It's not just a domestic constitutional question. It's the US signaling to the world that workers' rights are optional—and that's exactly what the ILO was created to prevent... The stakes are global."
US Sen. Bernie Sanders on Wednesday evening warned that a ruling by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, which struck down a law that shielded National Labor Relations Board judges from being fired at will by the White House, would give union-busting employers yet another advantage in a legal system that is already stacked in their favor.
As Reuters reported, the appeals court ruled that protections for administrative judges at the board were unconstitutional impediments to the president's ability to run the executive branch as he sees fit.
"This is what oligarchy looks like," Sanders wrote in a post on X. "Today, two Trump judges ruled that the NLRB's structure is unconstitutional giving [SpaceX CEO] Elon Musk, worth $410 billion, and other union busters the absolute power to exploit workers and violate labor law with impunity. This disastrous decision cannot stand."
Circuit Judge Don Willett, a Trump appointee, wrote that "because the executive power remains solely vested in the president, those who exercise it on his behalf must remain subject to his oversight," meaning that the president should have more power to dismiss judges.
As a result of the ruling, National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) cases against SpaceX, pipeline operator Energy Transfer, and social services search engine Aunt Bertha have for now been put on hold, although NLRB is expected to appeal the ruling.
California-based law firm CDF Labor Law explained that, under the 1935 National Labor Relations Act, the president could only fire NLRB board members for "neglect of duty or malfeasance in office," and could only remove NLRB administrative judges for "good cause" after undergoing a hearing conducted by a separate agency.
New York-based labor attorney Benjamin Dictor warned that this ruling could ultimately leave the US labor movement with little recourse when employers violate workers' rights.
"Right now, the NLRB is the only federal body that investigates unfair labor practices, certifies unions, and compels bargaining. If it's defunct, there is no backup system," wrote Dictor. "That means workers fired for union activity? No remedy. Employers refusing to bargain? No consequences. Organizing elections? Suspended indefinitely."
If federal courts eventually rule that the NLRB is unconstitutional, he added, "it won't just be a US labor crisis. It could put the US out of compliance with its obligations under international law."
He then explained that the US has obligations as a member of the International Labor Organization (ILO) and that gutting NLRB would throw international labor standards into chaos.
"In ILO terms, that's the US failing to ensure even basic compliance with freedom of association and collective bargaining standards," he said. "It's not just a domestic constitutional question. It's the US signaling to the world that workers' rights are optional—and that's exactly what the ILO was created to prevent... The stakes are global."