What’s at stake in this case?
“Confirmed Judges, Confirmed Fears” is a blog series documenting the harmful impact of President Trump’s judges on Americans’ rights and liberties. It includes judges nominated in both his first and second terms.
.
What’s at stake in this case?
The new owner of a hospital sought to avoid an NLRB rule requiring bargaining with the existing union for up to one year.
What happened in this case?
The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has long had a rule requiring that a new owner of a business must continue bargaining with the existing union for up to one year during the transition. Hospital Menonita de Guayama challenged the NLRB rule, known as the “successor bar” rule. The DC Circuit upheld the rule. The Supreme Court, however, vacated the decision and sent the case back for reconsideration in 2024 in light of Loper Bright Enterprises v Raimondo, which overturned the Chevron doctrine of deference to agencies.
Trump DC Circuit judge Neomi Rao issued a 2-1 decision in July 2026, joined by Trump judge Justin Walker, which ruled in favor of the hospital and invalidated the NLRB rule. They maintained that the previous DC Circuit decision upholding the rule was based on Chevron deference to the NLRB’s rulemaking authority, and that Loper Bright required reconsideration. They independently interpreted the rule and determined that it was “inconsistent” with the National Labor Relation Act as they saw it. Accordingly, they invalidated the rule in Hospital Menonita de Guayama v NLRB. George HW Bush judge Ray Randolph dissented.
Why did Judge Randolph dissent?
Judge Randolph explained that the majority had mistakenly believed that the previous DC Circuit decision, upholding the successor bar rule, had applied the Chevron framework, but in fact, the previous decision “did no such thing.” Instead, Randolph wrote, it relied on the principle, independent of Chevron, that the NLRA itself had entrusted the NLRB with “substantial discretion” to develop and implement national labor policy. It was based on that authority that the NLRB had promulgated the successor bar rule , and overruling Chevron had nothing to do with the validity of the rule. In fact, Randolph noted, the previous DC Circuit decision upholding the rule did not even cite Chevron. He concluded that the original decision upholding the rule should have been reinstated.
Why is the decision harmful?
The decision by Trump judges Rao and Walker does more than invalidate the successor bar rule that the NLRB has maintained is important to fair labor practices. It also sets a troubling precedent that undermines NLRB authority to make and implement fair labor rules across the board, removing authority conferred by Congress and granting even more authority than did the Supreme Court to lower federal courts. In addition, the ruling illustrates the importance of our federal courts to health, welfare and justice and the significance of having fair-minded judges on the federal bench.