Client Alerts & Insights
Mixed Review: D.C. Circuit Nixes Some Trump-Era NLRB Election Changes, Saves Others
January 20, 2023
Authored By:
On January 17, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit struck down certain Trump-era changes to the rules by which the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) administers union elections.
As background, the changes, issued in December 2019, implemented more than a dozen revisions to the NLRB’s election rules, easing several election deadlines and requiring that certain disputes be resolved prior to voting, rather than after. The rule changes largely rescind the NLRB’s Obama-era policies that had shortened the election timeline and instead returned the NLRB to its prior framework. At the time of the rule changes, then-NLRB Chairman John Ring championed them as “common sense” modifications to an accelerated process that undermined the rights of workers and employers alike. Unions, on the other hand, criticized the rule changes, arguing that the then-Republican-led NLRB tilted the scales in favor of employers by allowing them more time to engage in information campaigns and delay elections.
Consequently, in a March 2020 lawsuit filed in Washington, D.C.’s federal trial court, the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) alleged that the rule changes unlawfully altered rights guaranteed to workers by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and that the NLRB violated the Administrative Procedure Act when it adopted the rule changes without soliciting public feedback. Then-U.S. District Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson agreed with the AFL-CIO and blocked five of the rule changes from going into effect. An appeal to the D.C. Circuit followed, culminating in Tuesday’s decision.
In its 2-1 ruling, the D.C. Circuit affirmed Jackson’s decision to block three of the five rule changes, those being the changes that: (1) ease the deadline for employers to turn over workers’ contact information; (2) delay certification of election results when employers challenge officials’ decisions to hold elections; and (3) limit whom unions may designate as their election watchdog. According to the court’s majority, these three changes are substantive ones which require the NLRB to solicit public feedback before issuing them.
The court, however, overturned Jackson’s blockage of the rule changes that: (1) delay elections in which employers raise voter eligibility and other challenges; and (2) lengthen the timeline for holding elections. The court reasoned that these were procedural changes that did not require public feedback.
Despite Tuesday’s ruling, the decision may not have an immediate impact on how the NLRB conducts union elections, as “[t]he board is analyzing the D.C. Circuit’s decision to determine the appropriate next steps,” said NLRB Chairwoman Lauren McFerran in a statement.
For more information on this ruling, contact a member of Bensch’s Labor & Employment Practice Group.
Eric Baisden at ebaisden@beneschlaw.comor 216.363.4676.
Adam Primm at aprimm@beneschlaw.com or 216.363.4451.
Latest News
The Coming State-Law Litigation Wave of 2026-27: “Subscription Trap” Class Actions
The subscription economy keeps growing—and so does the wave of class-action litigation targeting it. While the FTC’s regulatory efforts have drawn headlines, private class actions under state laws pose an even greater exposure risk.
Updates to Fees and Grace Periods for Nonimmigrant Visas
Starting September 9, 2026, the 9-11 Response Biometric Entry-Exit Fee will apply to H-1B and L-1 extension petitions filed by employers subject to the fee. Prior to the new rule, the fee was only required for (1) initial grant of status to a foreign national seeking H-1B or L-1 status and (2) a change of employer in the same status.
Third Circuit Decision Reshapes Creditor Standing in Successor Liability Disputes
The Third Circuit recently held that when determining whether a successor liability claim belongs to a bankruptcy estate, the key question is whether the claim seeks to remedy harm suffered by all creditors collectively or a unique injury suffered by a specific creditor. The fact that creditors may be permitted to bring the claim outside of bankruptcy is not, by itself, determinative.
CMS Proposes Sweeping Restrictions on Remote Patient Monitoring: The Outsourcing Ban, Reimbursement Revaluation and Potential Code Consolidation in the CY 2027 Physician Fee Schedule Proposed Rule
CMS’s CY 2027 Proposed Rule would significantly restrict Medicare reimbursement for Remote Patient Monitoring (RPM) and Remote Therapeutic Monitoring (RTM), including banning outsourced clinical staffing, adding new patient-relationship and initiating-visit requirements, reducing certain reimbursement rates, and exploring consolidation of existing billing codes.