top of page
Search

What Does the End of Chevron Deference Mean for Labor?

National Labor Relations Board defanged

Published March 11 2025

Analysis by Zeke Lega


Established by Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., the Chevron deference was a judicial doctrine requiring courts to defer to federal agencies’ interpretations of ambiguous laws when reasonable. Historically, this precedent allowed federal agencies the leeway to effectively regulate their areas of interests, establishing that ambiguities in a legislative text can implicitly act as Congressional delegation of lawmaking power to the agencies that oversaw their enforcement where present.


For the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), the Chevron doctrine has been vitally important in the agencies’ ability to protect the interests of American workers while also serving the corporations that employ them. Through the Chevron doctrine, the NLRB held immense control over the interpretations and therefore enforcement of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), which defends the right of American workers to unionize and collectively bargain, among other protections. Today, NLRB rulings have defended workers’ rights to representation before disciplinary action(1), defended workers’ choices to unionize or not(2), and prevented anti-union retaliation from employers(3) — each ruling continuing a long history of fighting to maintain the rights of American workers. All this is set to change, however, as the 40-year-old precedent was overturned this summer in the Supreme Court’s ruling on Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024), returning judgment “in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority” to the courts(4). This decision has left those with an interest in labor relations with a single, burning question: what does the end of Chevron mean for labor law?


The 2020s have been a notably pro-labor period for the United States, marked by a significant increase in unionization efforts across the country; in 2023, unionization petitions increased by 27% from the year prior, with 83% of unionization elections concluding in the union’s favor(5). Even before the Loper Bright Enterprises decision, corporations and politicians alike have made concerted efforts to fight back this pro-labor tide. Just this spring, several southern governors explicitly advocated against unionization efforts at auto plants(6), and in May, lawmakers in Alabama passed a bill that threatened companies who voluntarily recognized unions with revoked state funds(7). Outside of political actors, large corporations have launched attacks of their own – recent suits filed by SpaceX, Amazon, and Trader Joe’s allege that the structure of NLRB is unconstitutional(8), all with the end goal of pushing the courts to realign legal doctrine in their favor. Readers should note that all of these suits were filed following the NLRB’s findings against these companies and others for their retaliatory firing of employees attempting to unionize their workplaces — a suggestion that these suits were not filed primarily out of opposition to alleged bureaucratic overreach or a legitimate concern for the separation of powers.


With Chevron gone, anti-labor players across the board have been emboldened in their desire to wrench back gains in worker’s rights, and some economists fear these anti-union initiatives are only the beginning of a larger anti-labor backlash. Many of the NLRB’s standards and regulations are now at risk of being overturned by the judiciary, impacting both the future of these burgeoning unions and, potentially, the shape of labor law in broad well into the future. Put simply, a movement to challenge the NLRB’s regulation in court in a particularly right-wing period for the American court system(9) could spell doom for U.S. labor. Thus far, Chevron’s overturning has only encouraged more aggressive litigation against worker’s rights, sparking several attempts to hamper the agency’s effectiveness. Just last month, Tesla won its appeal against the NLRB’s ruling on its owner Elon Musk’s alleged anti-union intimidation posts on X, formerly Twitter(10). Already, the end of the Chevron deference is creating room for corporate figures to buck against existing labor law, and succeed. Amazon, too, has reinvigorated its effort to bludgeon the NLRB(11) in the wake of Chevron’s death — a less-than-ideal sign for pro-labor interests.


Should the current trend hold, it would set the stage for a monumental defanging of the NLRB as a regulatory body, smothering the pro-labor movement in its crib and clearing the path for a right-to-work future. As proceedings are ongoing in several of the cases addressed in this article, it is difficult to say whether they represent a glimpse into the bleak future of American labor law or mere attempts to dull the tide of pro-union sentiment growing in the United States. With luck, the principles enshrined by the NLRA will be unweathered by the current turmoil - but only time can tell.


  1.  National Labor Relations Board. Ralphs Grocery Company and United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 324. Case 21–CA–039867. July 31, 2014.

  2. National Labor Relations Board.  Representation-Case Procedures: Election Bars; Proof of Majority Support in Construction Industry Collective-Bargaining Relationships. August 1, 2024. 

  3. National Labor Relations Board. Tschiggfrie Properties, Ltd. and Teamsters Local 120, a/w International Brotherhood of Teamsters. Case 25–CA–161304. November 22, 2019. 

  4. “Chevron Deference.” Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School, 2024. Accessed November 1, 2024. www.law.cornell.edu/wex/chevron_deference. 

  5. Schmid, Brianna, and James A. Holt. “Unionization Activity Continues to Surge in the U.S.” Employment Law Watch, October 21, 2024. Accessed October 28, 2024. www.employmentlawwatch.com/2024/10/articles/employment-us/unionization-activity-continues-to-surge-in-the-u-s/. 

  6. Quinlan, Casey. “States Are Pushing Back with Anti-Labor Laws as Union Popularity Grows, Policy Experts Say.” Wisconsin Examiner, September 16, 2024. Accessed October 28, 2024. www.wisconsinexaminer.com/2024/09/16/states-are-pushing-back-with-anti-labor-laws-as-union-popularity-grows-policy-experts-say/. 

  7. Hardy, Kevin. “As a Key Labor Union Pushes into the South, Red States Push Back.” Stateline, May 20, 2024. Accessed October 30,  2024. www.stateline.org/2024/05/20/as-a-key-labor-union-pushes-into-the-south-red-states-push-back/. 

  8. Giorno, Taylor, and Julia Shapero. “Corporate Giants Aim to Hobble National Labor Relations Board.” The Hill, Feb 28, 2024. Accessed November 1, 2024. thehill.com/business/4491063-corporate-giants-aim-to-hobble-national-labor-relations-board/.

  9. Monyak, Suzanne. “Liberals Face More Conservative Courts to Fight Trump Policies.” Bloomberg Law, November 6, 2024. Accessed 06 Nov. 2024. news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/liberals-face-more-conservative-courts-to-fight-trump-policies. 

  10. Raymond, Nate. “US Labor Board Wrongly Ordered Tesla’s Musk to Delete Anti-Union Tweet, Court Rules.” Reuters, Oct 28, 2024. Accessed October 29, 2024. www.reuters.com/legal/us-labor-board-wrongly-ordered-teslas-musk-delete-anti-union-tweet-court-rules-2024-10-26/. 

  11. Hadero, Haleluya. “Amazon Says in a Federal Lawsuit That the NLRB’s Structure Is Unconstitutional.” AP News, September 6, 2024. Accessed November 3, 2024. apnews.com/article/amazon-nlrb-50ee06d87d4eaef22386382761335ef8.


 
 
 

Comments

bottom of page