Starbucks Baristas File Brief Urging Supreme Court to Allow President to Remove Rogue Agency Officers
National Right to Work Foundation-backed federal case for Starbucks employees was first federal case to argue that NLRB officials can’t be shielded from the President’s oversight
Washington, DC (October 20, 2025) – Two Starbucks employees represented by the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation have filed an amicus brief at the United States Supreme Court in the case Trump v. Slaughter. The brief argues that restrictions on the President’s authority to fire members of executive bodies, such as the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) or the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), are unconstitutional, violating the separation of powers.
The amicus brief was filed on behalf of Ariana Cortes and Logan Karam, two New York Starbucks employees who challenged the constitutionality of the structure of the NLRB in a separate federal court case with the assistance of Foundation staff attorneys.
Since 2023, Foundation staff attorneys have pioneered the legal argument that the NLRB’s structure is unconstitutional because it places restrictions on the President’s authority to fire the NLRB’s members, despite it being part of the executive branch of government. This disconnect exemplifies the problem of federal bureaucrats operating as an unaccountable, “headless fourth branch,” something clearly at odds with the government’s constitutional structure.
Now, the Trump Administration is using this same argument as a justification to fire members of the FTC. Rebecca Slaughter, a Biden appointee to the FTC, has sued to be reinstated, and the case is now before the Supreme Court. The Foundation-backed amicus brief argues that as the Court considers the FTC, it must keep in mind that other so-called “independent agencies” that wield executive power, such as the NLRB, must be subject to Presidential control and removal.
Supreme Court May Reverse Humphrey’s, Must Recognize Its Limitations
Trump v. Slaughter provides the Supreme Court an opportunity to reverse its decision in the 1935 case Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, in which the Court crafted an exception to the general rule that the President can remove principal officers at will under Article II of the U.S. Constitution. In theory, Humphrey’s exempted agencies that exercised “quasi-judicial” or “quasi-legislative” power, but not those that exercise executive power.
But regardless of the Court’s reevaluation of the case, “the NLRB fails the Humphrey’s Executor test,” the brief argues.
“The NLRB is a policymaking body that enforces the [National Labor Relations Act] based on its legal conclusions, not scientific or technical judgments,” write Foundation staff attorneys. “[T]he Board does not exercise quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial authority. It exercises executive power in everything it does.”
The brief concludes with the Foundation’s legal argument that Humphrey’s “cannot neuter the President’s ability to supervise those who exercise substantial parts of [executive] power.” Therefore, the Supreme Court “should make clear that the President’s removal power applies to every agency that exercises executive power, including the NLRB.”
Clear Separation of Powers Would Support Workers’ Individual Rights
A proper understanding of the limitations of Humphrey’s when it comes to executive bodies like the NLRB would support workers like Cortes and Karam as they exercise their individual rights. Cortes and Karam are trying to exercise their right to remove local union bosses from their respective workplaces. But non-statutory policies enforced by the pro-Big Labor Biden NLRB have stymied their efforts. Success in this case could help ensure that Cortes and Karam receive a fair judgment from the NLRB in their cases.
“Unaccountable and biased NLRB bureaucrats have caused direct harm to independent-minded workers and their individual rights, and the Supreme Court should rightfully restore the proper separation of powers, including at the NLRB,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “We are proud that the very legal arguments made by Foundation attorneys are now being utilized by this administration to dismantle the unaccountable fourth branch of government and restore proper constitutional structure.”
Starbucks Worker Asks Labor Board to Review Order Denying Vote to Remove Unwanted Union
Request for Review to full National Labor Relations Board says Regional Director erred in dismissing workers’ petition
Buffalo, NY (June 12, 2023) – National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys have filed a Request for Review with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in Washington, D.C. This requests asks the Board to reverse a Regional Director’s order dismissing a workers’ petition for a decertification election on whether to remove the so-called Starbucks Workers United (SBWU) union, an affiliate of Service Employee International Union (SEIU). The request is part of a case that began when Ariana Cortes, a Buffalo Starbucks worker, filed a petition with the NLRB requesting the decertification election be held at the “Del Chip” Starbucks location where she works.
Cortes’ decertification petition, which was filed on April 28, has support from a majority of her coworkers who also want to remove the union from their workplace. After her initial filing, Cortes began receiving free legal assistance from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys.
“They have treated us like pawns, promising us that we could remove them after a year if we no longer wanted their representation, and are now trying to stop us from exercising our right to vote,” Cortes said in a statement about why so many of her coworkers support removing the union. “It’s obvious they care more about power and control than respecting our individual rights.”
Under federal law, workers can trigger an NLRB-supervised decertification election with the signatures of 30% or more of the employees in a workplace. After receiving the petition, NLRB officials should then promptly move to schedule an election. However, on May 25, the NLRB Region 3 Regional Director issued an order dismissing the decertification petition.
In response to this order, Cortes’s Foundation staff attorneys filed the request for review with the four member NLRB in Washington, DC. The filing emphasizes the wishes of the employees to continue with the decertification process to remove the monopoly union representation that lacks the support of a majority of the workers, which is a fundamental principle of the National Labor Relations Act that the NLRB is charged with enforcing.
The brief also observes that the grounds for blocking the vote is contradicted by the NLRB allowing union-backed certification elections to proceed. The result is that the SEIU is like a roach motel, easy to enter but impossible to leave.
“The Region dismissed her petition and disenfranchised her and her fellow employees of the right to choose their representative—the same right that has been granted over 350 times to employees seeking certification,” the brief states.
So far, workers at three different Starbucks locations in New York State have filed decertification petitions. In addition to the Del Chip store, Foundation staff attorneys also represent the petitioner in the Starbucks Roastery case, where a majority of workers also support the decertification effort.
The Foundation has also issued a legal notice to all Starbucks employees, offering free legal aid to any worker who may be interested in removing SBWU’s so-called “representation” from their workplace: www.nrtw.org/starbucks
“Workers have a statutory right to decertify a union they oppose, and it is outrageous that the Regional Director has so callously moved to disenfranchise these workers of that right,” commented National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation President Mark Mix. “The NLRB must reverse course and cease acting like its mission is simply to protect incumbent union officials against workers who are opposed to unions’ so-called representation.”
