法官裁定马斯克旗下 SpaceX 起诉国家劳工关系委员会
Judge Rules For Musk's SpaceX In Lawsuit Against National Labor Relations Board

原始链接: https://www.zerohedge.com/political/judge-rules-musks-spacex-lawsuit-against-national-labor-relations-board

在最近的一项裁决中,美国地区法官艾伦·奥尔布赖特宣布国家劳工关系委员会(NLRB)的组成可能违宪。 此前,埃隆·马斯克 (Elon Musk) 的 SpaceX 提起诉讼,称给予 NLRB 成员及其行政法法官的某些保护使他们免于被总统解雇。 根据美国宪法,总统拥有所有行政权; 然而,根据现行联邦法律,这些人只能因疏忽或不当行为而被解雇,而另一个委员会必须在解雇前确定是否有正当理由。 奥尔布赖特法官认为,此类规定侵犯了总统罢免被指派帮助履行行政职责的官员的宪法权利。 作为对诉讼的回应,SpaceX 寻求临时限制令,以阻止董事会对他们采取的任何行动。 虽然政府律师反对根据 1935 年最高法院的一项裁决(《汉弗莱执行者》)发布禁令,该裁决称总统缺乏罢免执行官员的“无限”权力,但奥尔布赖特法官批准了这一请求,下达了禁令,直至另行通知。 不过,他强调,他的裁决并不妨碍国会寻找宪法方法来实现其目标。

相关文章

原文

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times,

The makeup of a federal labor board is likely unconstitutional, a federal judge ruled on July 24, siding with Elon Musk’s SpaceX.

Members of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), and administrative law judges (ALJs) employed by the board, are likely unconstitutionally protected from removal by the president, according to U.S. District Judge Alan Albright.

“Under binding precedent, this court is satisfied that SpaceX has demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on its claims that Congress has impermissibly protected both the NLRB Members and the NLRB ALJs from the President’s Article II power of removal,” he said in a 15-page decision.

SpaceX, which builds and launches rockets and other spacefaring vehicles, filed the legal action in April in Waco, Texas.

The company pointed to Article II of the U.S. Constitution, which gives the president all executive power.

Under court precedent, the president must have unrestricted power to remove officers, including administrative law judges, who assist him in carrying out his duties.

But under federal law, the NLRB members can only be removed for neglect or malfeasance, and the board’s judges can only be removed if a different board decides there is good cause.

“The statutes’ provision of at least two layers of removal protection prevents that exercise of presidential authority and thus violates Article II of the Constitution,” the suit stated.

SpaceX asked for a preliminary injunction to block proceedings initiated against it by the board.

Lawyers for the firm said the company would be harmed if an injunction was not issued. Government attorneys opposed the request, citing a U.S. Supreme Court ruling from 1935, known as Humphrey’s Executor, that found the president does not have “illimitable power of removal” of executive officers.

Judge Albright ruled in favor of SpaceX and imposed an injunction as the case proceeds. He said the ruling came in part because of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit’s ruling that restrictions on removal for administrative law judges in the Securities and Exchange Commission are unconstitutional.

“Allowing Congress to eliminate the president’s ability to remove principal officers for inefficiency would be an unjustified expansion of Humphrey’s Executor,” he stated.

“Finding that NLRB member’s removal protection constitutional would require this court to expand Humphrey’s Executor where the Supreme Court has repeatedly declined to do so.”

The judge added later that no part of the injunction “prevents Congress from using a constitutional means to achieve its goals.”

联系我们 contact @ memedata.com