This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
The Court noted that the board had delegated its powers to a three‑member panel in December 2007, and the petitioners have not contested that delegation.
Background and question before the Court
What each side argues
Petitioner (New Process Steel, L.P.)
According to Mr. Richie, petitioner argues that the Wagner Act allows a quorum of two members on a three‑member board, citing legislative history and past practice.
According to Petitioner (Mr. Katyal), according to Petitioner (Mr. Katyal), petitioner contends that the board’s delegation to a three‑member panel remains effective even after a member departs, relying on the principle that delegated authority survives loss of the principal.
According to Petitioner (Mr. Katyal), according to Petitioner (Mr. Katyal), petitioner points to historical evidence that the board has decided over 460 cases with only two members, indicating that such practice is permissible.
According to Petitioner (Mr. Katyal), according to Petitioner (Mr. Katyal), petitioner argues that Congress was aware of the board operating with two members and that the board chose to maintain a three‑member panel rather than shut down.
According to Mr. Katyal, petitioner emphasizes the quorum provision’s language that “quorum” means a number sufficient to transact business, supporting the view that two members suffice after delegation.
- [1] d495ca701163c8797f7e-r1-267f3f47bf9186b0.pdf, p. 21
- [2] d495ca701163c8797f7e-r1-267f3f47bf9186b0.pdf, p. 39
- [3] d495ca701163c8797f7e-r1-267f3f47bf9186b0.pdf, p. 40
- [4] d495ca701163c8797f7e-r1-267f3f47bf9186b0.pdf, p. 41
- [5] d495ca701163c8797f7e-r1-267f3f47bf9186b0.pdf, pp. 46–47
- [6] d495ca701163c8797f7e-r1-267f3f47bf9186b0.pdf, p. 31
Respondent (National Labor Relations Board)
Source-limited. The record does not yet support a complete account.
What happened at oral argument
Petitioner was represented by Sheldon E. Richie, Esq., of Austin, Texas.
Respondent was represented by Neal K. Katyal, Esq., Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.
What the Court decided
Why it matters
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- d495ca701163c8797f7e-r1-267f3f47bf9186b0.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 23, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.