In 2012, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) under Obama changed 77 years of legal understanding of the law (N ational L abor R elations A act) enforced by the NLRB. By mere executive fiat the NLRB invalidated all prior legal understanding of the NLRA to say that provisions of the Federal Arbitration act are invalidated by the NLRA.
How could 77 years of legal understanding of what Congress legislated suddenly change, by mere executive fiat, without Congress itself having revisited the laws and changed them? It couldn’t, but the NLRB tried to do it on it’s own.
That was followed with some circuit courts suddenly deferring to the reasoning of the new found executive ruling of the NLRB even though it stands as contrary to legal history and multiple prior Supreme Court decisions.
With circuit courts ruling differently on similar cases on this issue, the Supreme Court took the case, endeavoring to resolve any disputes between the lower courts.
The Supreme Court decided in favor of the 77 years of legal understanding of the National Labor Relations Act and the Federal Arbitration Act, finding there is no conflict between them and the National Labor Relations Act has never, and is not now, a legal means of invalidating arbitration agreements under the Federal Arbitration Act.
Many ignorant of the law are posing this ruling as a big change in what has been legally possible for employees seeking claims against employers, when actually it does not portend a big change, but leaves in place what have been the previous legal standards and means.
If Congress wants to change that, it can, but using mere executive fiat or just as bad, judicial fiat to change the law is not the route to go. All the court did was what courts should do - invalidate changes the executive attempts to make in the law by themselves, instead of asking Congress to change the law.
Thank you for that information.