President’s Recess Appointments Exceed Authority Based on Supreme Court Decision

26 June 2014 Labor & Employment Law Perspectives Blog
Authors: Carrie Hoffman Taylor Eric White

After months of anticipation, the United States Supreme Court today issued its opinion in the Nat’l Lab. Relations Bd. v. Noel Canning case.  No. 12-1281, slip op. at 1 (June. 26, 2014).  By way of background, on January 2, 2012, President Obama made three appointments to the National Labor Relations Board while the Senate “was in recess pursuant to a December 17, 2011, resolution providing for a series of brief recesses punctuated by ‘pro forma session[s],’ with ‘no business . . . transacted,’ every Tuesday and Friday through January 20, 2012.”  Id. at 2.  In a unanimous decision, the Court found that President Obama exceeded his authority by making these appointments.  Id.

Cutting to the chase, what does this mean for employers? This decision calls into question the validity of the decisions from the National Labor Relations Board since the January 2, 2012 recess appointments.  The new five member Board, including four members recently approved by the Senate, will likely be called upon to revisit many of those decisions.

Why did the Court reach this conclusion? The Court was tasked, for the first time, with interpreting the Recess Appointments Clause.  See id. at 4, 9. The Clause is a constitutional provision that allows the President to temporarily appoint certain officers during a Senate recess.  Id. at 6.  But as the Court noted, the Clause does not offer “the President the authority routinely to avoid the need for Senate confirmation.”  Id.  And while the Court was reticent to upset a long history of Presidential recess appointments, id. at 9, the Court found the Senate is in session when it says it is, id. at 36, unless, under its own rules, it lacks the “capacity” to act, id. at 35 (emphasis in original).

With that in mind, the Court found “that the pro forma sessions [between December of 2011 and January of 2012] were sessions for purposes of the Clause.”  Id. at 36.  In doing so, it observed that the “Recess Appointments Clause is not designed to overcome serious institutional friction,” and instead merely “provides a subsidiary method for appointing officials when the Senate is away during a recess.”  Id. at 40.  On the other hand, the Court held that the Clause “empowers the President to fill any existing vacancy during any recess—intra-session or inter-session—of sufficient length[,]” id., but “a recess of more than 3 days but less than 10 days is presumptively too short to fall within the Clause,” id. at 21.

The majority opinion was delivered by Justice Stephen Breyer and joined by Justices Anthony Kenney, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan, and the concurring opinion was written by Justice Antonin Scalia and joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services

Insights

Do You Know What IMMEX Stands For?
16 July 2019
Dashboard Insights
Does The U.S. Need STRONGER Patents?
16 July 2019
PTAB Trial Insights
California Establishes Fund to Combat Wildfire Threats
15 July 2019
Renewable Energy Outlook
There’s No Place Like Home – But Is That a Reasonable Accommodation?
15 July 2019
Labor & Employment Law Perspectives
Review of 2020 Medicare Changes for Telehealth
11 December 2019
Member Call
2019 NDI Executive Exchange
14-15 November 2019
Chicago, IL
MAGI’s Clinical Research Conference
29 October 2019
Las Vegas, NV
Association for Corporate Counsel Annual Meeting 2019
27-30 October 2019
Phoenix, AZ