New Process Steel, L.P. v. NLRB
United States Supreme Court case
New Process Steel, L.P. v. NLRB, 560 U.S. 674 (2010), is a U.S. labor law case of the United States Supreme Court holding that the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) cannot make decisions without at least three members on a panel.
Background: the NLRA's quorum requirement
When the National Labor Relations Act (also known as the Wagner Act) was passed in 1935, the NLRB had three members, with two members "at all times" constituting a quorum. In 1947, Congress passed the Taft-Hartley Act, which increased the size of the Board from three to five members, with the powers of the Board delegated to three-member panels who issued decisions in cases.
According to Section 3(b) of the Act, as amended by Taft-Hartley,
The Board is authorized to delegate to any group of three or more members any or all of the powers which it may itself exercise. A vacancy in the Board shall not impair the right of the remaining members to exercise all of the powers of the Board, and three members of the Board shall, at all times, constitute a quorum of the Board, except that two members shall constitute a quorum of any group designated pursuant to the first sentence hereof.
Between 1993 and 2007, there were brief periods when the Board had only two members, but these have rarely extended beyond a few days and the two-member Board did not issue decisions.
The two-member Board
In December 2007, the terms for three of the Board's five members were set to expire. President George W. Bush's nominees were blocked by Senate Democrats. On December 16, 2007, Chairman Robert J. Battista's term expired and member Wilma Liebman took over as chairwoman for the remaining four-person Board.
Begin with the source’s own compact description: “New Process Steel, L.P. v. NLRB” is united States Supreme Court case. The dossier treats that line as a proposition to test through Process, Steel and NLRB, not as a finished interpretation.
Why this record matters
The phrase “united States Supreme Court case” supplies a clear boundary for inquiry. It also exposes the unanswered questions: who defined that boundary, when it became stable and which sources sit outside it.
The citation trail is more important than the brevity of the summary: it shows where individual claims can be examined in context. The source revision retrieved here is dated Jun 27, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q7011068. None of the 1 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 2010, 1935, 1947 and 1993.
Overview language is designed for orientation and should not be treated as a substitute for the evidence cited beneath it. The source lead contains qualifying language; that uncertainty should survive quotation, summary and reuse. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “New Process Steel, L.P. v. NLRB”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow New Process Steel, L.P. v. NLRB primary sources, New Process Steel, L.P. v. NLRB archive and Process research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “New Process Steel, L.P. v. NLRB”?
- What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
- Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “New Process Steel, L.P. v. NLRB” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.