US decides SpaceX is like an airline, exempting it from Labor Relations Act

The National Labor Relations Board abandoned a Biden-era complaint against SpaceX after a finding that the agency does not have jurisdiction over Elon Musk’s space company. The US labor board said SpaceX should instead be regulated under the Railway Labor Act, which governs labor relations at railroad and airline companies.

The Railway Labor Act is enforced by a separate agency, the National Mediation Board, and has different rules than the National Labor Relations Act enforced by the NLRB. For example, the Railway Labor Act has an extensive dispute-resolution process that makes it difficult for railroad and airline employees to strike. Employers regulated under the Railway Labor Act are exempt from the National Labor Relations Act.

In January 2024, an NLRB regional director alleged in a complaint that SpaceX illegally fired eight employees who, in an open letter, criticized CEO Musk as a “frequent source of embarrassment.” The complaint sought reinstatement of the employees, back pay, and letters of apology to the fired employees.

SpaceX responded by suing the NLRB, claiming the labor agency’s structure is unconstitutional. But a different issue SpaceX raised later—that it is a common carrier, like a rail company or airline—is what compelled the NLRB to drop its case. US regulators ultimately decided that SpaceX should be treated as a “common carrier by air” and “a carrier by air transporting mail” for the government.

SpaceX deemed a common carrier

In a February 6 letter to attorneys who represent the fired employees, NLRB Regional Director Danielle Pierce said the agency would defer to a National Mediation Board opinion that SpaceX is a common carrier:

In the course of the investigation and litigation of this case, a question was presented as to whether the Employer’s operations fall within the jurisdiction of the Railway Labor Act (“RLA”) rather than the [National Labor Relations] Act. As a result, consistent with Board law, the matter was referred to the National Mediation Board (“NMB”) on May 21, 2025 for an opinion as to whether the Employer is covered by the RLA. On January 14, 2026, the NMB issued its decision finding that the Employer is subject to the RLA as a common carrier by air engaged in interstate or foreign commerce as well as a carrier by air transporting mail for or under contract with the United States Government. Accordingly, the National Labor Relations Board lacks jurisdiction over the Employer and, therefore, I am dismissing your charge.

The letter was provided to Ars today by Anne Shaver, an attorney for the fired SpaceX employees. “The Railway Labor Act does not apply to space travel,” Shaver told Ars. “It is alarming that the NMB would take the initiative to radically expand the RLA’s jurisdiction to space travel absent direction from Congress, and that the NLRB would simply defer. We find the decision to be contrary to law and public policy.”

We contacted the NLRB today and will update this article if it provides a response. The NLRB decision was previously reported by Bloomberg and The New York Times.

“Jennifer Abruzzo, NLRB general counsel under former President Joe Biden, had rejected SpaceX’s claim that allegations against the company should be handled by the NMB,” Bloomberg wrote. “After President Donald Trump fired her in January last year, SpaceX asked the labor board to reconsider the issue.”

NLRB looked for way to settle

In April 2025, SpaceX and the NLRB told a federal appeals court in a joint filing that the NLRB would ask the NMB to decide whether it had jurisdiction over SpaceX. The decision to seek the NMB’s opinion was made “in the interests of potentially settling the legal disputes currently pending between the NLRB and SpaceX on terms mutually agreeable to both parties,” the joint filing said.

Shaver provided a July 2025 filing that the employees’ attorneys made with the NMB. The filing said that despite SpaceX claiming to hold itself out to the public as a common carrier through its website and certain marketing materials, the firm doesn’t actually carry passengers without “a negotiated, bespoke contract.”

“SpaceX’s descriptions of its transport activities are highly misleading,” the filing said. “First, regarding human spaceflight, other than sending astronauts to the ISS on behalf of the US and foreign governments, it has only ever agreed to contract with two very wealthy, famous entrepreneurs. The Inspiration4 and Polaris Dawn missions were both for Jared Isaacman, CEO of Shift4 and President Trump’s former pick to lead NASA prior to his public falling out with SpaceX CEO Elon Musk. Fram2 was for Chun Wang, a cryptocurrency investor who reportedly paid $55 million per seat. A total of two private customers for human spaceflight does not a common carrier make.”

The letter said that SpaceX redacted pricing information from marketing materials it submitted as exhibits. “If these were actually marketing materials provided to the public, there would be no need to redact pricing information,” the filing said. “SpaceX’s redactions underscore that it provides such materials at its discretion to select recipients, not to the public at large—far from the conduct of a true common carrier.”

The ex-employees’ attorneys further argued that SpaceX is not engaged in interstate or foreign commerce as defined by the Railway Labor Act. “SpaceX’s transport activities are not between one state or territory and another, nor between a state or territory and a foreign nation, nor between points in the same state but through another state. Rather, they originate in Florida, Texas, or California, and go to outer space,” the filing said.

Spaceflight company and… mail carrier?

The filing also disputed SpaceX’s argument that it is a “carrier by air transporting mail for or under contract with the United States Government.” Evidence presented by SpaceX shows only that it carried SpaceX employee letters to the crew of the International Space Station and “crew supplies provided for by the US government in its contracts with SpaceX to haul cargo to the ISS,” the filing said. “They do not show that the government has contracted with SpaceX as a ‘mail carrier.’”

SpaceX’s argument “is rife with speculation regarding its plans for the future,” the ex-employees’ attorneys told the NMB. “One can only surmise that the reason for its constant reference to its future intent to develop its role as a ‘common carrier’ is the lack of current standing in that capacity.” The filing said Congress would have to add space travel to the Railway Labor Act’s jurisdiction in order for SpaceX to be considered a common carrier.

When asked about plans for appeal, Shaver noted that they have a pending case in US District Court for the Central District of California: Holland-Thielen et al v. SpaceX and Elon Musk. “The status of that case is that we defeated SpaceX’s motion to compel arbitration at the district court level, and that is now on appeal to the 9th circuit,” she said.

SpaceX’s lawsuit against the NLRB is still ongoing at the US Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, but the case was put on hold while the sides waited for the NMB and NLRB to decide which agency has jurisdiction over SpaceX.