The Impacts of Political Shifts on American Law: A Case Study

Arguments about the unbalanced influence of political parties in American government and the law showcase numerous examples that support the criticisms of the power these party representatives hold over our country. One recent case in point: ExxonMobil v. National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). Starting in 2015, the Independent Employees Union, representing 165 employees at ExxonMobil’s research and development of energy-sector technologies sector in Annandale, New Jersey, filed repeated reports. These reports related to ExxonMobil violating contracts, refusing to give reasonable time off to employees, and other unfair-labor practices. According to the procedural history of the official report of the case, the charges filed by the Union led to the NLRB’s General Counsel issuing an unfair-labor practice complaint “alleging numerous violations of the Act by ExxonMobil…”; a complaint of which was heard by an administrative law judge that inevitably sided with the Union [1]. However, on September 28, 2020, the NLRB, at the time consisting of a Republican majority with Chairman Ring and Members Kaplan and William Emanuel, reversed the judge’s original findings and instead found that ExxonMobil did not commit any unfair-labor practices, dismissing the Union’s case [1]. 

How does this case show the power of political party representatives over American government and law? Former Republican NLRB Member Emanuel was found to have “owned more than $50,000 in shares of a mutual fund that invested in Exxon [2].” In 2023, the newly composed Democratic-led NLRB revisited the case, ruling instead against ExxonMobil, finding that Emanuel should have recused himself from the original case due his potential financial conflict of interest [1]. According to the summary of argument as stated in the official case report, this revisitation was made by an “undisputedly valid panel,” [1] but it is perhaps more likely that the change in political party control had more influence over this case. 

ExxonMobil has since appealed both the decision to revisit the case and the 2023 ruling against them. However, as of November 4th of this year, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel appeared likely to support the NLRB’s 2023 decision [2]. Circuit Judge James Graves emphasized that the NLRB had a responsibility to maintain a fair process, free from Emanuel’s possible bias. To ExxonMobil lawyer, Daniel Schudroff, he stated, “You want a pristine panel to reconsider. Doesn’t that make sense?”, implying it simply would not be unreasonable to have a new, unbiased panel to reconsider the case. However, Schudroff disagrees, citing it unnecessary given that “there was no evidence that Emanuel’s alleged conflict had any impact on the outcome of the case or on the other board members who had ruled in favor of Exxon… [2]” It is true, Emanuel did not solely decide to rule in ExxonMobil’s favor. It was instead a unanimous decision amongst the NLRB at the time, a unanimous decision with both Ring and Kaplan having no apparent compromising bias. Democratic Members McFerran and Wilcox also agree that there is no evidence that Emanuel’s investment in Exxon was a biasing factor [2]. Regardless, this is not the first Trump-era NLRB case where Emanuel was accused of having a conflict of interest. In 2018, for example, NLRB vacated a ruling from a case Emanuel had been cleared to rule over, which had involved Littler, his former law firm [2]. 

With all of this controversy surrounding William Emanuel and his connections that could result in biases within cases overseen by the NLRB, it is interesting how his affiliation with the Republican Party has led to these cases being revisited by newly Democratic-led Circuit courts and NLRB panels. Is it possible that, if he were a Democrat, these cases would not be revisited? Or perhaps, would instead be revisited by Republican-led legal boards? 

The truth of the matter is that the American government is predominantly controlled by Republicans and Democrats, and though there have been times when these two parties were able to compromise and agree, in recent times this has become more difficult. Sometimes, it can appear that offices in American government that contain multiple representatives showcase power struggles between these two political parties, where the party that makes up the majority is the ruling party over the office, and the other may go underrepresented. For example, though the Supreme Court currently has three justices that were nominated by a Democratic president, six were nominated by a Republican president. These justices usually vote on opposite sides of issues concerning the death penalty, abortion, and LGBTQ rights [3]. As such, it is likely that when they vote on these issues, the Democratic justices’ votes will be outweighed by the Republican majority.

Over the years, as the power struggle between the Democratic and Republican Party ensues, one party has the power in one area while the other has power in another. This shows a constant swinging of a pendulum, all the while cases come and go throughout the years, revisited during different times of power switches between these two parties. 

What is exemplified in the ExxonMobil v. NLRB case is not an issue of labor rights, but instead how this pendulum impacts the U.S. political parties and their influencial perspectives on cases involving its members. Though it is much more likely that investment in ExxonMobil had an influence in his own decision amongst the other NLRB members, what is instead the focus of this case is his membership of the Republican Party first, the NLRB second.

Sources:

1. ExxonMobil Research & Engineering Co, Inc., now known as ExxonMobil Tech. & Engineering Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 5th Cir., No. 23-60495, (2022).
2. Daniel Wiessner, US court seems to back NLRB’s finding on Trump-era member’s conflict in Exxon case, (Nov. 4, 2024, 2:33 PM), https://www.reuters.com/default/us-court-seems-back-nlrbs-finding-trump-era-members-conflict-exxon-case-2024-11-04/
3. Vincent Bonventre, 6 to 3: The Impact of the Supreme Court’s Conservative Super-Majority, New York State Bar Association (Oct. 31, 2023), https://nysba.org/6-to-3-the-impact-of-the-supreme-courts-conservative-super-majority/?srsltid=AfmBOoqu677ZQxLnz1SHFKWRs_Qab1OWi_ylNsxnoTLAPFOfW6URi8TR