SpaceX Loses Fifth Circuit Challenge in Labor Board Case (2)

SpaceX couldn’t challenge a district court’s failure to rule on its request to halt a National Labor Relations Board case alleging the company committed unfair labor practices, a federal appeals court ruled.

A district judge in Texas didn’t effectively deny SpaceX’s motion for a preliminary injunction by not issuing a decision on the request during the months when the company waged a successful battle against the judge’s transfer of the case to California, the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held Wednesday.

The appeals court said it had no jurisdiction to hear SpaceX’s appeal because there was no lower court ruling for it to review.

The case stems from one of the Elon Musk-led aerospace company’s lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the NLRB. SpaceX sued the agency in response to an administrative complaint alleging it illegally fired workers over an internal letter that sharply criticized Musk.

SpaceX requested a ruling on its motion to block the NLRB case by May 2, 2024, for the first time on April 26, then filed for Fifth Circuit review on April 30.

A Fifth Circuit motions panel granted the company’s bid for an injunction pending appeal on May 2. The appeals court agreed to stop the NLRB case with a single-sentence order that contained no legal reasoning.

In Wednesday’s ruling, the Fifth Circuit’s merits panel—composed of three different judges than the motions panel—said SpaceX showed no diligence in seeking to expedite its injunction request before it imposed a deadline on the district court and then went to the circuit court before its stated deadline passed.

SpaceX’s rationale that it went to the Fifth Circuit early due to fears it wouldn’t get relief if it filed later doesn’t cut the mustard, the appeals panel said.

“This justification does not explain or excuse SpaceX’s failure to inform the district court that its May 2 deadline was in fact an April 30 deadline,” Judge Irma Carrillo Ramirez, a Biden appointee, wrote for the panel.

SpaceX’s alleged harm was to participate in a May 2 teleconference on discovery issues, similar to two earlier teleconferences it took part in, the panel said. Thatwasn’t sufficiently serious to merit Fifth Circuit intervention, said the panel, which also included Judge James Graves, an Obama appointee, and Priscilla Richman, a George W. Bush appointee.

The NLRB declined to comment. SpaceX’s lawyer, Michael Kenneally of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

The case is Space Exploration Technologies Corp. v. NLRB, 5th Cir., No. 24-40315, 3/5/25.