The Third Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers parts of Delaware, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, ruled 2-1 that President Obama violated the constitution’s separation of powers when he recess-appointed Democrat Craig Becker to the NLRB in March 2010.

“We hold that the ‘the Recess of the Senate,’ in the Recess Appointments Clause refers to only intersession breaks,” the ruling states. “As a consequence, we conclude that the National Labor Relations Board panel below lacked the requisite number of members [three] to exercise the Board’s authority.”

The ruling stems from a disputed union election that occurred at a New Jersey nursing home. The NLRB denied the nursing home’s motion that the board illegitimately forced the company to recognize unionized managers. The Appeals Court ruled that the board did not have the authority to dismiss the motion because of the recess appointments.

The Third Circuit is not the first federal court to declare Obama’s recess appointments to the NLRB unconstitutional. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned an NLRB ruling in January because Obama unconstitutionally recess appointed Democrats Sharon Block and Richard Griffin while the Senate was still in session.

The D.C. Circuit is now considering a number of appeals to other NLRB rulings putting 910 rulings the board has issued since the recess appointments at risk of being overturned. The board has continued to operate in the face of the legal challenge, issuing more than 200 additional rulings since the D.C. Circuit declared it unconstitutional.

The House of Representatives passed a package of bills to prevent further board rulings until the Senate has confirmed three nominees. President Obama vowed to veto the legislation.

The Third Circuit ruling came the same day the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee took up the nominations of Griffin and Block, as well as three other nominees, to sit on the board. The board members argued that the D.C. Circuit stood alone in its decision and that they would not step down until the Supreme Court weighed in on the legitimacy of the appointments.

“The NLRB has functioned in the wake on constitutional challenges [in the past],” Democratic board Chairman Mark Gaston Pearce told the committee, referring to a Depression Era challenge to board authority. “We owe it to the public to continue to work.”

Ranking Republican Sen. Lamar Alexander (R., Tenn.) informed the committee of the Third Circuit’s decision as he explained his opposition to the candidates.

“The D.C. Circuit isn’t the only one; the Third Circuit this morning issued an opinion agreeing with them,” he said. “This point of disturbing end-arounds around congress is why I cannot support the nominations of these two [Block and Griffin].”

Labor watchdogs expressed support for the judges’ decisions, adding that it builds momentum for the upcoming Supreme Court case.

“Today, another federal appeals court has invalidated one of President Barack Obama’s so-called ‘recess appointments’ to the National Labor Relations Board,” said Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “As National Right to Work Foundation attorneys have argued in several courts, the Obama ‘recess appointments’ have clearly violated the U.S. Constitution. Today’s decision is a victory for independent-minded workers who have received unjust treatment at the hands of the pro-forced unionism NLRB over the last few years.”

The federal government has appealed the D.C. Appeals Court ruling to the Supreme Court.

Democrats Sharon Block and Richard Griffin have served on the board since January 2012. Obama used his recess power to appoint them while the Senate was still in pro forma session, hoping to spare them a potentially tough confirmation battle. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals declared their presence on the board unconstitutional in January 2013.

“President Obama … made recess appointments while the Senate was not in recess; this was unprecedented,” said ranking member Lamar Alexander (R., Tenn.). “There is a troubling lack of respect for the constitutional balance of powers and respect for the Senate’s role of advise and consent.”

The board ignored the ruling and has ruled on 206 labor disputes since January. The D.C. Circuit Court, which handles NLRB appeals, has been overwhelmed with cases challenging the board’s authority, which could lead the courts to throw out those decisions as well as the 910 rulings issued since the recess appointments. The government has appealed the case to the Supreme Court.

While acknowledging their expertise, Alexander said he could not support Block and Griffin’s nominations.

“My problem is not with their qualifications, my problem is they decided to keep issuing rulings … after the court said they were unconstitutional,” he said.

Block and Griffin defended their decision when asked by Committee Chairman Tom Harkin (D., Iowa) why they did not resign their posts.

“Since the Supreme Court has not yet ruled, I felt it was very important to do the very important work I took an oath to do,” Griffin said.

Block added that the workers she encountered during her tenure on the board motivated her.

“The public we serve relies on us … to protect the institution of the board; I thought it was incumbent upon me to continue,” Block said.

Alexander rejected the argument that a non-functioning board would prevent workers and companies from resolving disputes. He pointed out that the Appeals Court decision did not prevent NLRB regional offices from issuing decisions nor did it stop the NLRB from carrying out administrative duties, such as certifying union elections.

“You have to balance the confusion when possibly hundreds of decisions could be vacated,” he said.

The House of Representatives passed a package of bills that would prevent the board from issuing future rulings in April. Obama vowed to veto the legislation and it is not expected to pass the Democrat-controlled Senate.

Block and Griffin did not appear alone at Thursday’s hearing. HELP committee senators are considering a full slate of five nominees to the board.

Obama nominated Republicans Harry Johnson III and Philip Miscimarra in April.

“He’s trying to push through the package because that’s the only way to get them through,” one Senate aide told the Washington Free Beacon on the condition of anonymity.

Sen. Patty Murray (D., Wash.) criticized the package approach of confirmations as a sign of dysfunction, but expressed support for the nominees.

“That is no way to run a country,” she said. “I have some concerns about some of the individuals … but I hope we can move them through quickly.”

She asked the candidates if they approved of the package approach. Griffin, Block, and Democratic Chairman Mark Gaston Pearce said yes. The Republicans called the Democrats qualified, but declined to “instruct the Senate on how it conducts its business.”

“If I was a senator, I would confirm me,” Johnson said to laughs from the lawmakers.

Harkin criticized Republicans for “political gameplaying … and relentless filibustering of nominees.” He praised Pearce, Block, and Griffin.

“These attacks on the board have impacted real people in real life,” he said. “These three people have been dedicated [to serve] … even in tumultuous times.”

Sen. Tim Scott (R., S.C.) said there are serious concerns about the board’s actions over the past year, pointing out that it overturned decades of precedent to tilt the scales to labor unions. He pointed to the board’s decision to force employers to continue funneling union dues from employees to labor groups even after contracts expired. The decision overturned more than 40 years of precedent.

“This seems to be a board about picking winners and losers,” Scott said. “The board has become an activist board … instead of a neutral body.”

Tom Perez, who now heads the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division, passed out of committee along a party line vote, 12-10.

Committee Chairman Sen. Tom Harkin (D., Iowa) championed Perez through the process and accused the GOP of “pointless obstructionism” for twice delaying the committee vote.

“Mr. Perez has been as open and aboveboard as he could possibly be with this committee,” he said. “Mr. Perez did his job at DOJ, and he did it well.”

Republicans delayed the vote after Perez failed to comply with a House oversight investigation into his use of private email addresses to conduct government business. His refusal led ranking Oversight Democrat Rep. Elijah Cummings (D., Md.) to join Oversight Chairman Darrell Issa (R., Calif.) in calling for Perez to turn over the emails.

Ranking Republican Sen. Lamar Alexander (R., Tenn.) issued a blistering opening statement explaining his opposition. He accused Perez of “wheeling and dealing … in a way that is inappropriate for an assistant attorney general.”

“My review of his record has raised troubling questions,” he said. “I believe it’s premature (to move forward).”

Perez faces a tough confirmation process even with committee approval. Several Republicans, including Sen. David Vitter (R., La.) and Sen. Chuck Grassley (R., Iowa), have vowed to oppose the nomination, citing several controversial decisions Perez made while at the DOJ.

The Oversight Committee released a report in April alleging that Perez had orchestrated a quid pro quo with St. Paul, Minn., to protect a dubious legal doctrine that makes it easier to sue for racial discrimination. Emails revealed that Perez considered this a “top priority” and urged career attorneys to withdraw support from a $200 million whistleblower suit against the city.

Perez told the committee that the whistleblower suit lacked merit and that the city, rather than the DOJ, was responsible for the deal.

“Bad facts make bad law,” he said in a contentious April committee hearing.

He has also faced criticism for his handling of racial issues at the DOJ. A March inspector general report revealed Perez asserted that civil rights protections did not cover white voters. His approach to racial issues alienated some career DOJ attorneys.

He is the “most extreme cabinet nominee in 70 years,” DOJ whistleblower J. Christian Adams told the Washington Free Beacon in March.

Adams resigned his position with the Civil Rights Division after the office withdrew voter intimidation charges against two members of the New Black Panther Party who brandished weapons outside of a Philadelphia polling place in 2008.

Perez will be Obama’s sole Latino cabinet member if confirmed. Hispanic and union activists pressured lawmakers to pass him through “without delay” at a Wednesday afternoon press conference.

Perez’s nomination will move to the full Senate sometime in the next few months.

Perez, Obama’s nominee to head the Labor Department, has come under fire for failing to respond to congressional requests for information pertaining to an alleged quid pro quo he orchestrated that cost taxpayer up to $200 million.

“We sent the message in November in 2012 and we are ready to send another message in 2014 and in 2016,” CASA de Maryland executive director Gustavo Torres said at a press conference at La Raza headquarters.

Perez served as president of the board of CASA, a nonprofit group that helps legal and illegal immigrants find work. CASA members echoed their leader’s message on a march from the St. Regis Hotel, located two blocks from the White House, to La Raza’s building located four blocks from the White House.

“We are not one; we are thousands. If you can count, count us wisely,” they chanted in Spanish amid a sea of pre-made placards saying, “We’ll Remember Who Stands with Tom Perez” and “Latino Voters for Perez.”

Twelve people in red CASA shirts marched up 16th Street and greeted about 18 men and women in suits at La Raza’s headquarters, whereupon organizers handed seven media outlets a letter signed by 49 Hispanic interest groups.

Angel Aviles, an El Salvadoran construction worker who brought his three-year-old son Diego to the rally, said he was supporting Perez though struggled to give reasons why.

“It’s good; I’m not sure why … I don’t know. It’s the first time I’m here. I came for Luis,” he said, pointing to a friend in a CASA shirt.

Sophie, a four-year-old girl in a navy sundress, struggled to support a sign against the breeze. She attended the rally with her mother.

“I guess to support Tom Perez, to show Hispanic people are humans,” Sophie’s mother, who did not give her name, told the Washington Free Beacon as the press conference began.

Representatives from the various letter signatories mounted the podium to condemn Republicans for twice delaying Perez’s Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee confirmation vote. Speakers repeatedly referred to Perez as “our champion” and “our friend,” adding, “An attack on Tom Perez is an attack on the Latino community.”

“Tom Perez is a respected and loved member of the Hispanic community,” La Raza president Janet Murguía said. “We are united in outrage. … Make no mistake right now, this nominee is being disrespected and we as the Latino Community are watching very closely.”

Murguía repeatedly insisted Perez had “made a good faith effort to answer questions” regarding the reason for the delays—an alleged quid pro quo Perez orchestrated as the Department of Justice’s chief civil rights enforcement officer. He allegedly helped dismiss a $200 million whistleblower lawsuit against St. Paul, Minn., after the city dropped a Supreme Court case that threatened to derail a racial discrimination legal theory Perez supports.

The House Oversight Committee has repeatedly asked Perez for private emails that he used to conduct government business. He has not complied. Democratic Rep. Elijah Cummings (D., Md.) sent Perez a letter last week requesting the documents.

Murguía dismissed the bipartisan demands for Perez to cooperate with the St. Paul investigation.

“If there’s a member, especially a Democrat, who still wants answers then we can do that later in confirmation—there’s no reason he can’t exit the committee,” she said. “There may be good faith concerns [about the confirmation], but we believe, on substance, that one case should not define his entire career.”

Murguía said Perez’s nomination is an especially hot topic for Hispanic special interests because Obama did not nominate other minorities to high-ranking positions.

“We are disappointed that President Obama did not nominate more [Hispanics] to the highest positions in his administration,” she said. “We just think a cabinet should be as diverse and representative as this country.”

The Senate HELP committee will vote on Perez’s nomination on Thursday.

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed Federal Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis’ finding that the fire department intentionally discriminated against black candidates through the use of entrance examinations.

“The 2nd circuit, we believe, correctly reversed Judge Garaufis’ determination … that there had been intentional discrimination,” said New York City Corporate Counsel Michael Cardozo.

The court freed the department from many of the constraints that Garaufis imposed, including appointing a monitor to personally oversee FDNY hiring and recruitment practices for 10 years.

Instead, the monitor will only have the ability to report deficiencies, rather than prescribe policy itself. He will also only serve for five years and the department will have the ability to shorten that term.

“These requirements are an excessive intrusion into the duties of officials charged with citywide responsibilities, in the absence of either their liability or an indication that imposing requirements on the head of the relevant department will be inadequate,” the court ruled.

The Department of Justice filed a disparate impact lawsuit against the fire department in 2007. The Vulcan Society, an association of black firefighters, later joined the suit and alleged that the discrimination was intentional.

The Appeals Court ruling applies only to the question of intention. The city has yet to challenge the Department of Justice’s disparate impact claims that inspired the Vulcan Society’s case.

Garaufis awarded $128.7 million to black applicants who failed the firefighters exam citing disparate impact theory, which contends that objective criteria can be considered racist if they disproportionately keep minorities out of jobs even if there is no intent to discriminate. The city will have to wait to challenge that ruling, according to Cardozo.

FDNY Deputy Chief Paul Mannix, who heads the anti-quota group Merit Matters, hailed the decision as a major victory of public safety over political correctness.

“[The decision] sets everyone back who puts group identity over individual capability,” he said. “The city has bent over backwards, twisted into a pretzel to integrate. That’s not open to debate. We’ve spent north of $20 million on recruitment and put programs in place to get women and minorities into the FDNY.”

Merit Matters filed an amicus brief in the city’s appeal of the disparate treatment verdict. Mannix said there is still work to be done to prevent the department from using disparate impact theory to water down firefighting standards.

“There can’t be any diluting of standards in order to push quota hires through the fire academy,” Mannix said. “I have great confidence in Bureau of Training in the fire department … but if candidates don’t measure up, they can’t be kept on because of gender or skin color. It hurts firefighters and citizens of the city of all races and genders.”

Perez has been a vocal advocate in favor of disparate impact. The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee is investigating allegations that Perez orchestrated a quid pro quo to prevent the Supreme Court from overturning disparate impact.

Keith Sullivan, an attorney who has represented Merit Matters pro bono for more than two years, said that he fears Perez will work to undermine the group’s battle to preserve meritocracy in the fire department’s ranks if he becomes the next secretary of labor.

“You hire the best, most qualified candidate and you’ll get the best department; the minute politics plays into vetting process, you’re no longer hiring the best candidate,” he said. “What’s clear from Tom Perez and this Department of Justice is that they have a policy and practice of alleging racism where it simply doesn’t exist.”

The U.S. Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee will vote to confirm Perez on Thursday.

Four dozen reservists from the 459th Air Refueling Wing are about to deploy from Joint Base Andrews in Maryland to an “undisclosed location in southwest Asia and will provide aerial refueling in support of Operation Enduring Freedom,” according to an Air Force press release. There will be 68,000 other American troops waiting for them when they board the plane at an undisclosed time this week.

As President Barack Obama pulls out American forces from Afghanistan, the dominant media narrative over the past year has focused on the drawdown. But troop deployments, including those of reserve units sent to relieve active duty forces, are still happening across the country.

Pilot John Mortenson said the American public has “been very supportive.” But he’s also noticed that troop withdrawal may create the false impression that our men and women in uniform are no longer in harm’s way.

“It’s a double-edged sword,” he said. “It’s great to bring folks home, but there’s still work to be done and our day-to-day accomplishments don’t get much notice. It’s going to be a while before we can relax.”

Mortenson and the rest of the personnel seemed to be handling it pretty well. Each airman donned yellow or purple Mardi Gras beads. A select few sported flashing green beads that alternated between earth tones. They laughed and cracked jokes as I paced the rows of the auditorium.

“We use colored tape to identify where everyone is supposed to go, but the tape can rip,” the public affairs sergeant said. “The beads help us figure out where they’re supposed to go.”

Partying, military-style.

Mortenson, a 31-year-old Arlington native, is better prepared for the disruptions of military life than most. His father spent his career in the U.S. Navy, and he works on the base full time as a civilian aircrew trainer when he’s not wearing his jungle green flight suit. He concedes that there will always be trouble balancing “your duty to your family and your country.” He’s taking his sixth deployment as seriously as his five previous tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, not least of all because of the summer temperatures.

“Weather impacts the entire mission from morale to operations,” he said. “It degrades flight performance, so you have to plan on lots of hydration, on weight limits, lighter fuel loads.”

And sweat. Temperatures in Afghanistan can reach up to 130 degrees Fahrenheit outside the aircraft, so you can only imagine what it’s like “when you’re in a metal can that was built for the Cold War, not comfort,” as 10-year veteran Tech Sgt. Dana Fernkas said.

Heat takes a toll on all aircraft pilots, but 459th pilots are especially susceptible. The KC-135 Stratotanker they fly takes off weighing up to 322,500 pounds and carries about 180,000 pounds of fuel—enough to power the average economy car for the next 32 years—according to Mortenson.

Fernkas, a boom operator, will spend her tour on her belly, looking through a large window and guiding the KC-135’s hose into fighter planes and troop carriers travelling hundreds of miles an hour thousands of feet above the ground. Ten yards is all that separates the mammoth tanker from its targets.

Her troubles don’t end when the two aircraft are connected. The planes often disconnect as the tanker’s subject becomes heavier.

“Then you have to start all over again,” she said. “For a cargo plane, it takes about 10 to 20 minutes depending on if you have thunderstorms.”

Fernkas, 31, enlisted in the Air Force when she was a teenager and served on the ground crew while on active duty. She entered the reserves with the express goal of becoming a boomer.

“I watched so many planes take off and the ground crews are really important—they keep us in the air—but I wanted to be a part of it, to get closer to the mission,” she said.

Only three other news outlets arrived on the scene to cover the deployment: one base newspaper, one local ABC station, and a photographer from the Washington Times, who I will call Drew.

Drew arrived in Washington after serving 10 years in U.S. Navy, including five on an aircraft carrier. He did a great job explaining the nature of deployment from the weight of the roller bags the airmen packed—“ours were heavier, 120 pounds”—to the ultimate destinations of troops headed overseas—“the Navy, you go one direction [to your ship], the rest go to places like Bahrain and live in palaces for a month before they hit the warzone”—to Afghanistan itself—“most beautiful country you’ve ever seen if it wasn’t so war torn; amazing mountains, clear sky.”

But he was wrong about one thing.

We were told to arrive at the base’s Visitors Center by 7:15 or be left behind. I parked at 6:30 and saw the lot filled with a few run-down cars and industrial white vans carrying construction workers, rather than the family members I’d hoped to interview.

“Family usually only comes for pre-deployment stuff,” Drew explained. “They’re not going to be here for this.”

Ninety minutes later, the buses drew away from the red brick unit headquarters to take the airmen to the processing center. I saw her out of the corner of my eye: a petite young woman standing at the far corner of the building. Her right hand shielded her eyes from the sun, while her left balanced an infant’s car seat, as she scanned the two blue buses.

Somewhere inside the bus one man looked out the tinted windows, reminded of all that he will miss during his tour.

The department’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) issued a February guidance letter made public in April saying that labor union officials could participate in safety inspections at the request of an employee even if the employer is non-union.

“A person affiliated with a union without a collective bargaining agreement or with a community representative can act on behalf of employees as a walkaround representative so long as the individual has been authorized by the employees to serve as their representative,” wrote OSHA Deputy Assistant Secretary Richard E. Fairfax.

OSHA conducts thousands of inspections on workplaces across the country every year, focusing particularly on the manufacturing sector. Employees are entitled to select an observer to accompany OSHA investigators on the inspections.

While union shops often select stewards to represent them, non-union workers select an employee to join the “walkaround.” The new OSHA interpretation would allow outside parties, such as union representatives, to enter the workplace for the first time.

Bill Principe, an attorney and workplace safety expert at Constangy, Brooks, & Smith, called the move a “very significant departure from 40 years of [OSHA] practices,” pointing to the fact that the regulation “specifically says that the representative shall be an employee.”

“I’ve been doing this a while and I’ve never seen a situation where an OSHA officer or employee thought about bringing in someone from outside [the company],” he said. “This interpretation came out of left field.”

Some labor watchdogs say that the interpretation is a Trojan horse, intended to help union officials gain entry into a workplace they would normally be excluded from without majority support from workers.

“They’re carrying the water of the big union bosses,” said Glenn Taubman, an attorney with the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. “They know that union organizing is in decline and are trying to help the unions get in any way they can. It’s part of the same regulatory scheme of the Obama administration to strangle employers and reward unions by making it easier to organize.”

Fairfax issued the interpretation in response to a clarification request from a representative with the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union.

The regulation allows for third party experts, such as industrial hygienist or safety engineers to visit the site, but no mention is made of labor groups. Fairfax couched his interpretation in vague terms and extended the third-party language to unions.

Principe, the labor attorney, said such queries are common, but not solicited “without [the questioner] already knowing the answer.”

“We’re not really talking about hygienists; that’s not the intent from a practical perspective. It’s a union rep asking,” he said. “The letter is pretty straightforward.”

Fairfax has since retired, according to an OSHA official. He could not be reached for comment.

OSHA spokesman Jesse Lawder denied that the interpretation departed from previous understanding of labor regulations because the field operations manual allows for third party inspections.

“OSHA expects that this clarification will have little impact,” he said. “Having a walkaround representative is an important, longstanding right for workers to get an effective and thorough inspection.”

Principe and other labor attorneys disagreed, pointing out that such language has referred to union shops, rather than non-union workplaces.

Principe said that the new interpretation’s vagueness could “cause lengthy delays” on inspections, especially the hundreds of surprise visits OSHA makes every year.

The letter does not make clear how many employees are required to request a union representative before one must be called. The OSHA investigator would then have to make a spot decision about how to proceed or call regional or national attorneys to decipher the rule.

“Presumably under this interpretation, any employee could say ‘well I want a union rep to accompany OSHA,’ even if it’s just on behalf of himself,” he said.

Employers who want to avoid union proselytizing through safety inspections would be left with little recourse other than rejecting a safety inspection and asking OSHA investigators to obtain a warrant before entering the premises with union officials, according to Principe.

OSHA does not have to post its response to letters on the website, according to Principe, and when it does, “it’s making a point.” The department hammered that point home when it edited a 2003 OSHA advisory that presented a contradictory, but traditional, interpretation of walkarounds.

“This is an OSHA Archive Document, and may no longer represent OSHA Policy. It is presented here as historical content, for research and review purposes only,” the site now says.

Principe’s Constangy, Brooks, & Smith colleague, labor relations expert David Phippen, said the issue extends beyond the practical implications on an inspection site. The interpretation could allow union officials onto a site without having the approval of a company’s workers.

“OSHA avoids the main point that that representative has never been elected by majority of employees in a proper NLRB election,” he said. “It’s sticking their nose into something they don’t have representative status in.”

Rep. Elijah Cummings (D., Md.), ranking Democrat on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, called on Perez to submit 1,200 emails sent from his personal email account to conduct Department of Justice business—a tactic used to avoid disclosure laws.

“We write to request that you produce all documents responsive to the subpoena issued to you by the committee on April 10,2013, regarding your use of a non-official e-mail account to conduct official Department of Justice business,” Cummings wrote in a letter with Oversight Chairman Darrell Issa (R., Calif.). “To allow the committee to fully examine these e-mails, please produce all responsive documents in unredacted form.”

The Department of Justice has insisted that it has fully complied with the committee’s request for the emails, but Issa has repeatedly accused Perez, who serves as the DOJ’s chief civil rights enforcer, of withholding information. Issa sent a blistering letter to Perez on Monday, calling on him to comply.

“Your continued and blatant disregard for a duly issued congressional subpoena is extremely disconcerting, especially coming from one of the nation’s highest law enforcement officers,” the letter said. “You have not produced a single e-mail as required by the plain terms of the subpoena issued to you on April 10, 2013. Until you produce all responsive e-mail communications, including at least the 1,200 e-mails that the department has identified as responsive, you will continue to be noncompliant with the subpoena.”

Cummings’ cosigning of the letter stands in stark contrast to his staunch defense of Perez’s nomination. He criticized Republicans during a Tuesday subcommittee hearing that explored allegations that Perez quashed a $200 million whistleblower lawsuit to preserve a constitutionally dubious legal doctrine known as disparate impact.

“Today’s hearing is an unfortunate and highly partisan exercise intended to raise unfounded questions about the reputation of Mr. Perez,” Cummings said in his opening statement. “Mr. Perez did nothing wrong.”

Perez is the latest Obama administration official accused of using private email accounts to dodge transparency laws. Two EPA officials, including agency head Lisa Jackson, also allegedly sent thousands of emails using pseudonymous accounts.

The committee’s 10-month investigation into Perez’s conduct in the alleged quid pro quo, as well as the email controversy, caused the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee to postpone his nomination for a second time yesterday.

Perez, who was originally scheduled to undergo a committee confirmation vote on Wednesday afternoon, will now have to wait until May 16 to move forward to the Democrat-controlled Senate.

“Mr. Perez and the administration have not yet produced all the information some Senators are requesting—information that is key to the Senate’s constitutional role of advice and consent—and until those documents and answers to questions are received, it is appropriate to delay the committee’s vote on Mr. Perez,” Sen. Lamar Alexander (R., Tenn.), the ranking member of the HELP Committee, said in a statement.

Three companies had sued the NLRB on the grounds that it did not have the authority to rule on labor disputes. The motion of consolidation issued by the judges will combine the suits and allow them to move forward with oral arguments scheduled for September.

Glenn Taubman, a lawyer with the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, hailed the victory as another step forward to restoring balance in labor disputes.

“The [employer] petitions will shut the board down in these respective cases,” he said. “It won’t necessarily shut down the board entirely, but it provides a roadmap for everyone to get the NLRB out of their cases.”

The NLRB serves as an arbiter in labor disputes and oversees labor practices and unionism throughout the country.

Numerous legal challenges to the board’s ability to issue rulings emerged after the D.C. Court of Appeals ruled in January that President Barack Obama’s recess appointments of union lawyers Richard Griffin and Sharon Block were unconstitutional. The NLRB has pledged to continue issuing rulings until the Supreme Court weighs in on the issue.

The board’s defiance drew harsh criticism from Republicans on Capitol Hill.

The House of Representatives passed legislation to shut down the board in April. That bill is unlikely to pass the Senate and would likely be vetoed by Obama.

Taubman said the D.C. circuit provides the quickest route to halting the operation of the constitutionally dubious board. He praised the court for “no longer sitting on their hands, waiting for the Supreme Court.”

“This law was settled in the D.C. circuit,” he said. “It’s your decision, it’s good law issued by your circuit, now it’s time to take your decision seriously and enforce it.”

The ruling came the same day a separate D.C. appeals court panel tossed out a NLRB ruling that forced employers to post notices informing workers of their right to unionize while leaving out information about their right to opt out of union dues. The NLRB decided companies that did not put up the signs could be charged with unfair labor practices and punished by the board. The court ruled that the punishment infringed on an employers’ freedom of speech.

“The court decided that the right to free speech includes the right to be silent, in this case by not putting up a sign; the government was trying to force companies to speak [the government’s] views,” said David Phippen, a labor attorney with Constangy, Brooks, and Smith. “NLRB had never done anything like that to all employers before.”

The NLRB had unilaterally decided that it had the regulatory authority to order nearly every American workplace to put up the posters. Two of the three appeals court justices questioned this authority.

“Congress never gave [the NLRB] the power to do this,” Taubman said. “The posting rule was just a way to get more employees into the unions at the behest of Obama and the big union bosses.”

Taubman said the NLRB’s inability to successfully defend their rulings in appeals courts, as well as the legal challenges to its authority, cast serious doubts on its integrity.

“There is a huge, huge legitimacy problem here; every decision is suspect,” he said. “Everybody knows there’s a cloud hanging over this board; it’s never been held in lower esteem.”

Fredrick Newell, an affordable housing advocate and construction company owner, exposed St. Paul, Minn., for allegedly fraudulently receiving millions of federal dollars without providing the job training and low income contracting required by federal law.

He brought the case to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the Department of Justice (DOJ), which agreed to take on the case.

Tom Perez, the DOJ’s chief civil rights enforcer, allegedly sabotaged the $200 million fraud case in order to get the city to drop a Supreme Court appeal that threatened disparate impact theory.

Newell told a joint hearing of the House Oversight and Judiciary subcommittees on Tuesday that he paid a great personal price to bring the suit only to see it scrapped.

“Our company suffered and when we brought the HUD complaints we were retaliated against. … There was pushback,” Newell testified. “It was a real travesty … being sold [out].”

Newell’s story has become a political football since President Barack Obama tapped Perez to be the next labor secretary. Republicans have called the deal a quid pro quo, while Perez and Democrats dismissed Newell’s case as a “bad case.” However, Newell said the whistleblower suit was apolitical.

“My aims were to … make a program work in St. Paul that we found would help people,” Newell said, adding that career attorneys “thought it was a good case.”

Rep. Jim Jordan (R., Ohio) accused Perez of endangering the prospects of future whistleblowers, who may fear that “they will be thrown under the bus for political purposes.”

Rep. Matt Cartwright (D., Pa.) accused the GOP of using the hearing to “disparage” Perez and derail his nomination.

The comment drew the immediate objection of House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R., Calif.), who pointed out that the committee began investigating the case 10 months ago.

“We attempted to right this wrong for many months, long before an obscure member of [the Department of Justice] was considered for a cabinet appointment,” Issa said.

Cartwright refused to withdraw his comments and continued to criticize the committee, saying that Newell “was not a real whistleblower.” He echoed claims from Perez and other Democrats that Newell’s case was later dismissed because it was “bad law.”

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R., Iowa) slammed that assertion, pointing out that the case was dismissed because Newell lacked the standing that the federal government would have brought to the case—not because of the facts.

“Newell’s case was dismissed precisely because the United States was not a part of it,” he said.

He also revealed emailed notes from a meeting in which Department of Justice career attorney Michael Hertz said that the administration was “buying off St. Paul. Should be whether there are legit reasons to decline.”

Newell is now appealing the case.

Perez’s confirmation troubles extend beyond the alleged quid pro quo.

The Oversight Committee has requested more than 1,200 government emails that Perez sent from a private email account. The Department of Justice told lawmakers on Friday that they had “satisfied” the committee’s request, pointing out that some of the private emails were already archived on Perez’s government account.

Lawmakers accused Perez and the department of intentionally stalling and withholding potential evidence to avoid controversy until his confirmation. Issa appealed to Perez directly in a letter sent Monday night.

“Your continued and blatant disregard for a duly issued congressional subpoena is extremely disconcerting, especially coming from one of the Nation’s highest law enforcement officers,” Issa wrote. “You have not produced a single e-mail as required by the plain terms of the subpoena issued to you on April 10, 2013. Until you produce all responsive e-mail communications, including at least the 1,200 e-mails that the department has identified as responsive, you will continue to be noncompliant with the subpoena.”

Newell will play a crucial role in Perez’s confirmation battle. Sen. Tom Harkin (D., Iowa), chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, & Pensions (HELP) Committee, canceled an April hearing at which Newell was expected to testify. Senate Republicans forced Harkin to delay an April confirmation vote until Newell had visited Capitol Hill.

The HELP committee is expected to vote on Perez’s nomination Wednesday.