4 ms·

> It claims the NLRB’s proceedings, which involve a hearing in front of an NLRB administrative law judge (ALJ), violate SpaceX’s “constitutional right to trial

> It claims the NLRB’s proceedings, which involve a hearing in front of an NLRB administrative law judge (ALJ), violate SpaceX’s “constitutional right to trial by jury.” The company also accuses NLRB of violating the Constitution’s rules on the separation of powers, stating the agency’s structure “is miles away from the traditional understanding” of the concept. This is the same argument going against the FTC, SEC, and several other regulatory agencies. If you get charged of a crime by a public prosecutor, you get the ability to argue the facts in front of a court of law. If you get charged of a crime by a regulatory agency - you don't even get to argue the facts. I... might kinda side with SpaceX on this one? I am not trying to die on a corporate rights hill, and not that I think SpaceX is innocent of the charges, but it does seem like they should at least be able to argue the factualness of the crime they are being charged with? This does seem like something that should be done by the justice department. Still, it's almost surely going to get thrown out. They are trying to turn a NLRB infraction into a Constitutional law case in a hail-Mary attempt that it would get escalated to the Supreme Court.

kevingadd 3y ago
Feels like it's really just an attempt to drag out the proceedings further so that any labor law dispute turns into 8 years worth of trials and appeals and is ineffective at remedying problems
- legitster 3y ago
  In a way, this is definitely them lashing out. "We don't get a court case? We'll make one!" ... "on an unrelated topic"
ok_dad 3y ago
SpaceX is not a person, so it should not have constitutional protections. When forming a limited liability arrangement like this, you agree that the entity itself is governed by laws and regulations which may not be applicable to an individual. It’s a mistake for us to allow corporations to be treated as constitutionally protected entities.
- legitster 3y ago
  Corporations are a complete legal fabrication that only exist because they are constitutionally protected. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juridical_person https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juridical_person So it's a bit of a non-sequitur to say they should not have any constitutional protections. So while I agree they should not have the same level of individual rights as people, corporations are already allowed to sign checks and enter contracts own things and be sued. I'm just saying it makes more sense to me that we keep our constitutional powers separated. If it's a legal case it seems better for the judicial branch to do it.
  - gamblor956 3y ago
    Corporations pre-date the Constitution, and exist in many countries without a constitution, so they do not exist because of "constitutional protections." Corporations are legal constructs. They are not entitled to any legal protections beyond what the governing jurisdictions decides as a matter of regular law, and they are certainly not entitled to Constitutional protections of their own. In the U.S., Constitutions derive their rights from their owners, and their rights are derivative of their owners.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
tw04 3y ago
So you’re in favor of the government being able to kill a company? For instance 3Ms PFAS debacle has resulted in enough death and sickness that any person would face life in prison or death depending on where the trial took place. If we’re giving corporations constitutional protections, we should also give them the punishment we’d give an individual for their actions. You can’t have it both ways.
- pfannkuchen 3y ago
  Doesn’t the government generally have the power to assess a fine large enough to bankrupt a company?
  - hindsightbias 3y ago
    As long as Chapter 11 is ok for mass murder.
    - lomir8 3y ago
      [flagged]
- legitster 3y ago
  > So you’re in favor of the government being able to kill a company? Courts regularly order companies to be dissolved all of the time. But I think you are jumping to conclusions and trying to imply that I am saying something I am not. I just think legal cases should be executed by our judicial system.
biomcgary 3y ago
Given the current make up of the Supreme Court (particularly Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, IIRC), this hail-Mary isn't necessarily that low probability. Several justices don't like administrative courts being the law-maker, judge, jury, executioner, and tax collector. I think one's attitude toward this case (independent of Musk / SpaceX) comes down to how much you value separation of powers as a check on government vs consolidation of government power as a check on the power of corporations.
- legitster 3y ago
  Right, but it would take a lot of steps for it to even make it to the Supreme Court in the first case. As it is this has a huge chance of being instantly dismissed. > consolidation of government power as a check on the power of corporations This might be a good way of putting it. But I personally grew up in an ex-soviet country so my experience is that I am way more afraid of governments than corporations. If you think greedy corporations are bad - you should see what an unchecked "government of the people" can do to their own citizens' water supply.
  - Incipient 3y ago
    We rarely see unchecked corporations. Even "checked" corporations do some fairly heinous things. I would say both unchecked corporations and governments are so far into "bad" territory it doesn't matter how bad, both must be prevented from happening.
  - rickydroll 3y ago
    privatized water is not any better and arguably worse. I think the difference is level of graft and citizen involvement in management/oversight https://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/2015/08/02/water-privatization-facts-and-figures/ https://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/2015/08/02/water-privatiza...
  - skissane 3y ago
    > Right, but it would take a lot of steps for it to even make it to the Supreme Court in the first case. As it is this has a huge chance of being instantly dismissed. This is in the 5th Circuit. The 5th Circuit has already ruled that ALJs (administrative law judges) are unconstitutional, [0] a precedent which SpaceX is directly citing in this case–14 times. [1] Indeed, this is basically just copy-pasting the holdings from that judgement against the SEC, and applying them to the NLRB. The only way the NLRB wins given that precedent, is to convince the court that there is some constitutionally significant difference between the SEC's ALJs and its own–and even if the District Court judge were convinced of that, I doubt the 5th Circuit (the most conservative of the federal Courts of Appeal, and with a reputation of being unfriendly to the NLRB) would agree. So no way does this have a "huge chance of being instantly dismissed". However, that 5th circuit ruling is currently being appealed at SCOTUS (SEC v Jaresky). [2] It was argued in late November, so we should have a ruling by late June / early July, possibly even earlier. If SCOTUS upholds the 5th Circuit's ruling, SpaceX very likely wins. If SCOTUS overturns the 5th Circuit's ruling, SpaceX very likely loses. Both sides will readily agree to drag this out until they get that ruling. SpaceX's lawyers aren't really doing anything legally original here, just setting themselves up to potentially benefit from an upcoming SCOTUS ruling, if it happens to go their way. This case is unlikely to ever make it to that level, because that level will have already decided it one way or the other. This is somewhat misleading journalism, trying to make it sound like SpaceX is launching an novel attack on the NLRB, as opposed to just piggy-backing themselves on somebody else's attack on the entire ALJ system. [0] https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/20/20-61007-CV0.pdf https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/20/20-61007-CV0.pd... [1] https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/spacex-vs-nlrb-124cv1.pdf https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/sp... [2] https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/securities-and-exchange-commission-v-jarkesy/ https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/securities-and-e...
bryanlarsen 3y ago
As I understand it, SpaceX has the right to appeal the NLRB ruling in front of a real court if the hearing goes against them. So one can argue that they haven't lost the right to a real court. It's vaguely similar to a traffic ticket, which doesn't go through a full court unless appealed.

kevingadd 3y ago

Feels like it's really just an attempt to drag out the proceedings further so that any labor law dispute turns into 8 years worth of trials and appeals and is ineffective at remedying problems

legitster 3y ago
In a way, this is definitely them lashing out. "We don't get a court case? We'll make one!" ... "on an unrelated topic"

ok_dad 3y ago

SpaceX is not a person, so it should not have constitutional protections. When forming a limited liability arrangement like this, you agree that the entity itself is governed by laws and regulations which may not be applicable to an individual. It’s a mistake for us to allow corporations to be treated as constitutionally protected entities.

legitster 3y ago
Corporations are a complete legal fabrication that only exist because they are constitutionally protected. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juridical_person https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juridical_person So it's a bit of a non-sequitur to say they should not have any constitutional protections. So while I agree they should not have the same level of individual rights as people, corporations are already allowed to sign checks and enter contracts own things and be sued. I'm just saying it makes more sense to me that we keep our constitutional powers separated. If it's a legal case it seems better for the judicial branch to do it.
- gamblor956 3y ago
  Corporations pre-date the Constitution, and exist in many countries without a constitution, so they do not exist because of "constitutional protections." Corporations are legal constructs. They are not entitled to any legal protections beyond what the governing jurisdictions decides as a matter of regular law, and they are certainly not entitled to Constitutional protections of their own. In the U.S., Constitutions derive their rights from their owners, and their rights are derivative of their owners.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]

tw04 3y ago

So you’re in favor of the government being able to kill a company? For instance 3Ms PFAS debacle has resulted in enough death and sickness that any person would face life in prison or death depending on where the trial took place. If we’re giving corporations constitutional protections, we should also give them the punishment we’d give an individual for their actions. You can’t have it both ways.

pfannkuchen 3y ago
Doesn’t the government generally have the power to assess a fine large enough to bankrupt a company?
- hindsightbias 3y ago
  As long as Chapter 11 is ok for mass murder.
  - lomir8 3y ago
    [flagged]
legitster 3y ago
> So you’re in favor of the government being able to kill a company? Courts regularly order companies to be dissolved all of the time. But I think you are jumping to conclusions and trying to imply that I am saying something I am not. I just think legal cases should be executed by our judicial system.

biomcgary 3y ago

Given the current make up of the Supreme Court (particularly Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, IIRC), this hail-Mary isn't necessarily that low probability. Several justices don't like administrative courts being the law-maker, judge, jury, executioner, and tax collector. I think one's attitude toward this case (independent of Musk / SpaceX) comes down to how much you value separation of powers as a check on government vs consolidation of government power as a check on the power of corporations.

legitster 3y ago
Right, but it would take a lot of steps for it to even make it to the Supreme Court in the first case. As it is this has a huge chance of being instantly dismissed. > consolidation of government power as a check on the power of corporations This might be a good way of putting it. But I personally grew up in an ex-soviet country so my experience is that I am way more afraid of governments than corporations. If you think greedy corporations are bad - you should see what an unchecked "government of the people" can do to their own citizens' water supply.
- Incipient 3y ago
  We rarely see unchecked corporations. Even "checked" corporations do some fairly heinous things. I would say both unchecked corporations and governments are so far into "bad" territory it doesn't matter how bad, both must be prevented from happening.
- rickydroll 3y ago
  privatized water is not any better and arguably worse. I think the difference is level of graft and citizen involvement in management/oversight https://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/2015/08/02/water-privatization-facts-and-figures/ https://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/2015/08/02/water-privatiza...
- skissane 3y ago
  > Right, but it would take a lot of steps for it to even make it to the Supreme Court in the first case. As it is this has a huge chance of being instantly dismissed. This is in the 5th Circuit. The 5th Circuit has already ruled that ALJs (administrative law judges) are unconstitutional, [0] a precedent which SpaceX is directly citing in this case–14 times. [1] Indeed, this is basically just copy-pasting the holdings from that judgement against the SEC, and applying them to the NLRB. The only way the NLRB wins given that precedent, is to convince the court that there is some constitutionally significant difference between the SEC's ALJs and its own–and even if the District Court judge were convinced of that, I doubt the 5th Circuit (the most conservative of the federal Courts of Appeal, and with a reputation of being unfriendly to the NLRB) would agree. So no way does this have a "huge chance of being instantly dismissed". However, that 5th circuit ruling is currently being appealed at SCOTUS (SEC v Jaresky). [2] It was argued in late November, so we should have a ruling by late June / early July, possibly even earlier. If SCOTUS upholds the 5th Circuit's ruling, SpaceX very likely wins. If SCOTUS overturns the 5th Circuit's ruling, SpaceX very likely loses. Both sides will readily agree to drag this out until they get that ruling. SpaceX's lawyers aren't really doing anything legally original here, just setting themselves up to potentially benefit from an upcoming SCOTUS ruling, if it happens to go their way. This case is unlikely to ever make it to that level, because that level will have already decided it one way or the other. This is somewhat misleading journalism, trying to make it sound like SpaceX is launching an novel attack on the NLRB, as opposed to just piggy-backing themselves on somebody else's attack on the entire ALJ system. [0] https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/20/20-61007-CV0.pdf https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/20/20-61007-CV0.pd... [1] https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/spacex-vs-nlrb-124cv1.pdf https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/sp... [2] https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/securities-and-exchange-commission-v-jarkesy/ https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/securities-and-e...

bryanlarsen 3y ago

As I understand it, SpaceX has the right to appeal the NLRB ruling in front of a real court if the hearing goes against them. So one can argue that they haven't lost the right to a real court. It's vaguely similar to a traffic ticket, which doesn't go through a full court unless appealed.