October Term 2009 · Docket 08-1457

Can the NLRB issue decisions with only two members?

The dispute centers on whether the NLRB can issue adjudicatory decisions when its membership falls below the statutory quorum of three.

Official caption
New Process Steel, L. P. v. NLRB
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Argued
Sources analyzed through
Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  2. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    Mr. Richie argued the NLRB Act clearly states a quorum of three is required at all times.

    Mr. Katyal argued section 153(b) permits delegation of any or all board powers to three or more members.

    Justice Scalia questioned whether the side that brought the case's argument relies on the board's inability to act when membership falls below three.

    Justice Scalia asked if the board can pay salaries when its quorum disappears.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

The NLRB Act requires a quorum of three members. the side that brought the case argues this rule is absolute. the opposing side argues the board can delegate full powers to a three-member group.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on March 23, 2010.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

the side that brought the case wants the Court to hold that the NLRB cannot issue decisions with only two members.

the opposing side wants the Court to allow the NLRB to issue decisions when its membership falls to two.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

the side that brought the case argues the NLRB Act clearly states a quorum of three is required at all times.

the opposing side argues section 153(b) permits delegation of any or all board powers to three or more members.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Scalia asked if the side that brought the case's argument relies on the board's inability to act when membership falls below three.

Justice Scalia asked if the board can pay salaries when its quorum disappears.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This case determines whether the NLRB can continue issuing adjudicatory decisions when its membership falls below the statutory quorum of three.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON