31:
400:
476:
ambiguity of the specific text of the clause made the Court hold that the clause's purpose is broad, allowing the
President to ensure the continued functioning of government even when the Senate is away. However, despite finding that "the recess" means both inter-session and intra-session recesses, the Court added that a recess that is not long enough to require the consent of the
535:. While it agreed with the conclusion the Court reached, the concurrence chastises the majority opinion for ensuring "that recess appointments will remain a powerful weapon in the President's arsenal. ... That is unfortunate, because the recess appointment power is an anachronism." Scalia argues that the recess appointment power only applies to vacancies that
510:
sessions count as sessions, not recesses, consistent with the
Constitution's delegation of authority to the Senate to determine how it conducts its own business. However, the deference is not absolute: If the Senate is without the capacity to act (if all senators effectively gave up the business of
334:
wrote that the appointment power was ordinarily confined jointly to the
President and the Senate, but considering it unlikely that the Senate would remain continuously in session, the Constitution allowed the President to make temporary appointments when the Senate is in recess. Since the advent of
491:
admitted that the clause is subject to two constructions, and the Court argued that a narrow interpretation risks undermining powers granted by the
Constitution. The opinion found that the phrase applies to both vacancies that occur during a recess and those that occur before and continue to exist
291:
is in recess and not able to transact Senate business. The Court held that the clause allows the president to make appointments during both intra-session and inter-session recesses but only if the recess is of sufficient length, and if the Senate is actually unavailable for deliberation, thereby
555:
agreed with the ruling: "The
President made an unprecedented power grab by placing political allies at a powerful federal agency while the Senate was meeting regularly and without even bothering to wait for its advice and consent. A unanimous Supreme Court has rejected this brazen power-grab."
475:
The first question the opinion addressed was the scope of the phrase "the recess of the Senate" and whether that is limited to the inter-session recess between the two formal annual sessions of a
Congress or extends to intra-session recesses (such as the traditional August recess, etc.). The
567:, said that the Court had "emphatically rejected President Obama’s brazen efforts to circumvent the Constitution, bypass the people’s elected representatives, and govern above the law reaffirmed the Senate's vital advice-and-consent role as a check on executive abuses."
1304:
1105:
472:. Breyer, writing for the Court, stated, "We hold that, for purposes of the Recess Appointments Clause, the Senate is in session when it says it is, provided that, under its own rules, it retains the capacity to transact Senate business."
369:
157:
1540:
1462:
1634:
339:
no longer has long recesses. That has potentially changed the meaning of the Recess
Appointment Clause of the Constitution, which has affected the way the Senate and the President interact.
386:
held that the NLRB could not enforce its orders because of a lack of quorum caused by the ineffectiveness of recess appointments made by
President Obama while the Senate was not in recess.
1624:
790:
655:
1470:
913:
587:
383:
79:
1619:
1556:
1288:
1000:
357:
262:
1207:
1629:
1614:
887:
1438:
958:
746:
417:
296:. The Court also ruled that any office vacancy can be filled during the recess, regardless of when it arose. The case arose out of President
993:
835:
313:
772:
301:
276:
35:
502:
to satisfy the requirement that neither house may adjourn for more than three days without the consent of the other house. While the
861:
495:
Finally, the opinion dealt with the calculation of the length of the Senate's recess. During periods of recess, the Senate meets in
439:
153:
817:
1548:
986:
378:
361:
608:
551:
said that the ruling underscored "the importance of the rules reform Senate
Democrats enacted last November". Minority Leader
1215:
942:
421:
353:
305:
280:
677:
634:"National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning | LII Supreme Court Bulletin | LII / Legal Information Institute"
1081:
1065:
1073:
1587:
973:
1371:
477:
1532:
950:
1395:
1280:
1140:
564:
410:
382:
that the NLRB could not act without a quorum.) The D.C. Circuit vacated the NLRB's orders. In a similar case, the
1363:
1175:
1124:
1041:
360:'s power to appoint officials without Senate approval. The NLRB had found that Noel Canning refused to execute a
1422:
1414:
1089:
1049:
969:
Decision by the Third
Circuit Court of Appeals expanding the issue to include former Board Member Craig Becker
1387:
1057:
1446:
1199:
1191:
1156:
700:
349:
1379:
726:"National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law"
1430:
1355:
1312:
1253:
1132:
1097:
1148:
917:
591:
74:
503:
336:
288:
1009:
461:
203:
102:
1033:
331:
293:
284:
149:
506:
argued that the Senate was not actually in session despite these sessions, the Court found that
974:"Recess Appointments: Frequently Asked Questions." Congressional Research Service. June 7, 2013
769:
112:
1478:
1454:
963:
757:
372:
claiming that three of its five members were invalidly appointed, leaving the board without a
326:
978:
1497:
1296:
1183:
488:
1347:
776:
552:
528:
465:
457:
309:
219:
195:
191:
725:
368:, allegedly in violation of federal law. Noel Canning appealed the board's ruling to the
924:
594:
520:
453:
207:
183:
63:
1608:
968:
1261:
532:
524:
297:
215:
175:
131:
656:"Justices to Decide the Scope of Recess-Appointment Authority | Legal Times"
633:
560:
469:
399:
365:
227:
548:
90:
496:
135:
86:
933:
424: in this section. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
523:
wrote an opinion concurring in the judgment, joined by Chief Justice
373:
609:"Supreme Court Curbs President's Power to Make Recess Appointments"
370:
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
152:
Clause, the Senate is in session when it says that it is if, under
678:"National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning : SCOTUSblog"
346:
54:
National Labor Relations Board, Petitioner v. Noel Canning, et al.
376:
of lawfully appointed members. (The Court had previously held in
128:
1575:
1520:
1335:
1021:
982:
820:
Un sistema a due incognite: autodichia e procedura parlamentare
30:
511:
legislating), it remains in recess even if it says it is not.
393:
480:
is not long enough to trigger the Recess Appointment Clause.
888:"Supreme Court Narrows President's Recess Appointment Power"
285:
Recess Appointment Clause of the United States Constitution
252:
Scalia (in judgment), joined by Roberts, Thomas, and Alito
244:
Breyer, joined by Kennedy, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan
836:"High court rules against Obama on recess appointments"
1635:
United States Supreme Court cases of the Roberts Court
862:"Supreme Court strikes down Obama recess appointments"
822:, Forum di Quaderni costituzionali, 13 settembre 2017
384:
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
791:"Supreme Court rebukes Obama on recess appointments"
770:
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. NOELCANNING ET AL.
483:
Secondly, the Court addressed the phrase "vacancies
1489:
1406:
1272:
1245:
1226:
1167:
1116:
487:during the recess of the Senate" (emphasis added).
456:wrote the opinion of the Court, joined by Justices
279:case in which the Court unanimously ruled that the
256:
248:
240:
235:
164:
142:
123:
118:
108:
98:
69:
59:
49:
42:
23:
1557:Axon Enterprise, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission
1289:Springer v. Government of the Philippine Islands
156:, it retains the capacity to transact business.
1625:United States Constitution Article Two case law
584:National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning
272:National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning
24:National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning
994:
8:
304:, Richard Griffin, and Terence Flynn to the
356:, and it had potential implications on the
1572:
1517:
1403:
1332:
1113:
1018:
1001:
987:
979:
563:, a Republican and former chairman of the
20:
1620:National Labor Relations Board litigation
701:"Disarming the White House - NYTimes.com"
440:Learn how and when to remove this message
699:Ornstein, Norman J. (January 21, 2014).
345:dealt specifically with Noel Canning, a
964:Fourth Circuit ruling on a similar case
943:Supreme Court (slip opinion) (archived)
576:
287:to appoint public officials unless the
18:2014 United States Supreme Court case
7:
1439:Humphrey's Executor v. United States
422:adding citations to reliable sources
314:Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
283:cannot use his authority under the
1106:FOMBPR v. Aurelius Investment, LLC
636:. law.cornell.edu. January 3, 2014
36:Supreme Court of the United States
14:
1630:United States Supreme Court cases
1588:FEC v. NRA Political Victory Fund
1010:United States Appointments Clause
920:513 (2014) is available from:
886:Williams, Pete (June 26, 2014).
860:Gerstein, Josh (June 26, 2014).
789:Barnes, Robert (June 26, 2014).
398:
335:nearly year-round sessions, the
29:
1549:Elgin v. Department of Treasury
1533:Thunder Basin Coal Co. v. Reich
951:Transcript of oral argument in
834:Wolf, Richard (June 26, 2014).
539:while the Senate is in recess.
409:needs additional citations for
379:New Process Steel, L.P. v. NLRB
362:collective bargaining agreement
263:U.S. Const., Art. II, §2, cl. 3
1615:2014 in United States case law
1216:United States v. Arthrex, Inc.
607:Liptak, Adam (June 26, 2014).
354:National Labor Relations Board
306:National Labor Relations Board
281:President of the United States
1:
1541:Free Enterprise Fund v. PCAOB
1463:Free Enterprise Fund v. PCAOB
275:, 573 U.S. 513 (2014), was a
1074:Quackenbush v. United States
352:affected by a ruling of the
1372:McAllister v. United States
514:
277:United States Supreme Court
1651:
1396:Shurtleff v. United States
1281:Shoemaker v. United States
1246:Challenges to Appointments
934:Oyez (oral argument audio)
565:Senate Judiciary Committee
1582:
1571:
1527:
1516:
1364:Crenshaw v. United States
1342:
1331:
1176:United States v. Germaine
1125:United States v. Hartwell
1042:United States v. Le Baron
1028:
1017:
261:
169:
147:
28:
1423:Parsons v. United States
1415:United States v. Perkins
1273:Appointments by Congress
1090:NLRB v. SW General, Inc.
1050:Mimmack v. United States
779:, decided June 26, 2014.
658:. nationallawjournal.com
478:House of Representatives
1447:Wiener v. United States
1407:Limits on Removal Power
1388:Reagan v. United States
1200:Edmond v. United States
1192:Freytag v. Commissioner
1157:Burnap v. United States
1058:United States v. Corson
1023:Appointment of Officers
547:Senate Majority Leader
543:Subsequent developments
312:as the director of the
43:Argued January 13, 2014
1522:Jurisdiction stripping
1431:Myers v. United States
1356:Blake v. United States
1313:Weiss v. United States
1254:Ryder v. United States
1141:United States v. Smith
1133:United States v. Mouat
1117:Officers vs. Employees
1098:Ortiz v. United States
1082:United States v. Smith
1066:United States v. Eaton
1380:Keim v. United States
85:134 S. Ct. 2550; 189
45:Decided June 26, 2014
1235:NLRB v. Noel Canning
953:NLRB v. Noel Canning
910:NLRB v. Noel Canning
515:Scalia's concurrence
418:improve this article
343:NLRB v. Noel Canning
337:United States Senate
289:United States Senate
148:For purposes of the
113:Opinion announcement
109:Opinion announcement
1490:Removal by Congress
1337:Removal of Officers
1227:Recess Appointments
1149:Auffmordt v. Hedden
959:D.C. Circuit ruling
818:Giampiero Buonomo,
795:The Washington Post
300:'s appointments of
294:recess appointments
204:Ruth Bader Ginsburg
1034:Marbury v. Madison
775:2014-06-27 at the
705:The New York Times
613:The New York Times
492:through a recess.
332:Alexander Hamilton
180:Associate Justices
150:Recess Appointment
1602:
1601:
1598:
1597:
1567:
1566:
1512:
1511:
1508:
1507:
1479:Collins v. Yellen
1471:Selia Law v. CFPB
1455:Morrison v. Olson
1327:
1326:
1323:
1322:
1168:Inferior Officers
504:Solicitor General
450:
449:
442:
327:Federalist No. 67
268:
267:
1642:
1573:
1518:
1498:Bowsher v. Synar
1404:
1333:
1297:Buckley v. Valeo
1184:Ex parte Siebold
1114:
1019:
1003:
996:
989:
980:
947:
941:
938:
932:
929:
923:
896:
895:
883:
877:
876:
874:
872:
857:
851:
850:
848:
846:
831:
825:
816:
812:
806:
805:
803:
801:
786:
780:
766:
760:
755:
749:
744:
738:
737:
735:
733:
722:
716:
715:
713:
711:
696:
690:
689:
687:
685:
680:. scotusblog.com
674:
668:
667:
665:
663:
652:
646:
645:
643:
641:
630:
624:
623:
621:
619:
604:
598:
581:
489:Thomas Jefferson
445:
438:
434:
431:
425:
402:
394:
358:executive branch
292:limiting future
165:Court membership
138:2013) (affirmed)
33:
32:
21:
1650:
1649:
1645:
1644:
1643:
1641:
1640:
1639:
1605:
1604:
1603:
1594:
1578:
1563:
1523:
1504:
1485:
1402:
1348:Ex parte Hennen
1338:
1319:
1268:
1241:
1222:
1163:
1112:
1024:
1013:
1007:
945:
939:
936:
930:
927:
921:
905:
900:
899:
885:
884:
880:
870:
868:
859:
858:
854:
844:
842:
833:
832:
828:
824:, p. 8, fn. 37.
814:
813:
809:
799:
797:
788:
787:
783:
777:Wayback Machine
767:
763:
756:
752:
745:
741:
731:
729:
724:
723:
719:
709:
707:
698:
697:
693:
683:
681:
676:
675:
671:
661:
659:
654:
653:
649:
639:
637:
632:
631:
627:
617:
615:
606:
605:
601:
582:
578:
573:
553:Mitch McConnell
545:
517:
485:that may happen
446:
435:
429:
426:
415:
403:
392:
322:
310:Richard Cordray
220:Sonia Sotomayor
218:
206:
196:Clarence Thomas
194:
192:Anthony Kennedy
94:
44:
38:
19:
12:
11:
5:
1648:
1646:
1638:
1637:
1632:
1627:
1622:
1617:
1607:
1606:
1600:
1599:
1596:
1595:
1593:
1592:
1583:
1580:
1579:
1576:
1569:
1568:
1565:
1564:
1562:
1561:
1553:
1545:
1537:
1528:
1525:
1524:
1521:
1514:
1513:
1510:
1509:
1506:
1505:
1503:
1502:
1493:
1491:
1487:
1486:
1484:
1483:
1475:
1467:
1459:
1451:
1443:
1435:
1427:
1419:
1410:
1408:
1401:
1400:
1392:
1384:
1376:
1368:
1360:
1352:
1343:
1340:
1339:
1336:
1329:
1328:
1325:
1324:
1321:
1320:
1318:
1317:
1309:
1301:
1293:
1285:
1276:
1274:
1270:
1269:
1267:
1266:
1258:
1249:
1247:
1243:
1242:
1240:
1239:
1230:
1228:
1224:
1223:
1221:
1220:
1212:
1204:
1196:
1188:
1180:
1171:
1169:
1165:
1164:
1162:
1161:
1153:
1145:
1137:
1129:
1120:
1118:
1111:
1110:
1102:
1094:
1086:
1078:
1070:
1062:
1054:
1046:
1038:
1029:
1026:
1025:
1022:
1015:
1014:
1008:
1006:
1005:
998:
991:
983:
977:
976:
971:
966:
961:
956:
948:
904:
903:External links
901:
898:
897:
878:
852:
826:
807:
781:
761:
758:Fourth Circuit
750:
739:
717:
691:
669:
647:
625:
599:
575:
574:
572:
569:
544:
541:
516:
513:
448:
447:
406:
404:
397:
391:
388:
321:
318:
266:
265:
259:
258:
254:
253:
250:
246:
245:
242:
238:
237:
233:
232:
231:
230:
208:Stephen Breyer
184:Antonin Scalia
181:
178:
173:
167:
166:
162:
161:
145:
144:
140:
139:
125:
121:
120:
116:
115:
110:
106:
105:
100:
96:
95:
84:
71:
67:
66:
61:
57:
56:
51:
50:Full case name
47:
46:
40:
39:
34:
26:
25:
17:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1647:
1636:
1633:
1631:
1628:
1626:
1623:
1621:
1618:
1616:
1613:
1612:
1610:
1590:
1589:
1585:
1584:
1581:
1574:
1570:
1559:
1558:
1554:
1551:
1550:
1546:
1543:
1542:
1538:
1535:
1534:
1530:
1529:
1526:
1519:
1515:
1500:
1499:
1495:
1494:
1492:
1488:
1481:
1480:
1476:
1473:
1472:
1468:
1465:
1464:
1460:
1457:
1456:
1452:
1449:
1448:
1444:
1441:
1440:
1436:
1433:
1432:
1428:
1425:
1424:
1420:
1417:
1416:
1412:
1411:
1409:
1405:
1398:
1397:
1393:
1390:
1389:
1385:
1382:
1381:
1377:
1374:
1373:
1369:
1366:
1365:
1361:
1358:
1357:
1353:
1350:
1349:
1345:
1344:
1341:
1334:
1330:
1315:
1314:
1310:
1307:
1306:
1302:
1299:
1298:
1294:
1291:
1290:
1286:
1283:
1282:
1278:
1277:
1275:
1271:
1264:
1263:
1259:
1256:
1255:
1251:
1250:
1248:
1244:
1237:
1236:
1232:
1231:
1229:
1225:
1218:
1217:
1213:
1210:
1209:
1205:
1202:
1201:
1197:
1194:
1193:
1189:
1186:
1185:
1181:
1178:
1177:
1173:
1172:
1170:
1166:
1159:
1158:
1154:
1151:
1150:
1146:
1143:
1142:
1138:
1135:
1134:
1130:
1127:
1126:
1122:
1121:
1119:
1115:
1108:
1107:
1103:
1100:
1099:
1095:
1092:
1091:
1087:
1084:
1083:
1079:
1076:
1075:
1071:
1068:
1067:
1063:
1060:
1059:
1055:
1052:
1051:
1047:
1044:
1043:
1039:
1036:
1035:
1031:
1030:
1027:
1020:
1016:
1011:
1004:
999:
997:
992:
990:
985:
984:
981:
975:
972:
970:
967:
965:
962:
960:
957:
955:
954:
949:
944:
935:
926:
919:
915:
911:
907:
906:
902:
893:
889:
882:
879:
867:
863:
856:
853:
841:
837:
830:
827:
823:
821:
811:
808:
796:
792:
785:
782:
778:
774:
771:
765:
762:
759:
754:
751:
748:
743:
740:
727:
721:
718:
706:
702:
695:
692:
679:
673:
670:
657:
651:
648:
635:
629:
626:
614:
610:
603:
600:
596:
593:
589:
585:
580:
577:
570:
568:
566:
562:
557:
554:
550:
542:
540:
538:
534:
530:
526:
522:
512:
509:
505:
501:
499:
493:
490:
486:
481:
479:
473:
471:
467:
463:
459:
455:
444:
441:
433:
423:
419:
413:
412:
407:This section
405:
401:
396:
395:
389:
387:
385:
381:
380:
375:
371:
367:
363:
359:
355:
351:
348:
344:
340:
338:
333:
330:
328:
319:
317:
315:
311:
307:
303:
299:
295:
290:
286:
282:
278:
274:
273:
264:
260:
255:
251:
247:
243:
239:
236:Case opinions
234:
229:
225:
221:
217:
213:
209:
205:
201:
197:
193:
189:
185:
182:
179:
177:
174:
172:Chief Justice
171:
170:
168:
163:
159:
155:
154:its own rules
151:
146:
141:
137:
133:
130:
126:
122:
117:
114:
111:
107:
104:
103:Oral argument
101:
97:
92:
88:
82:
81:
76:
72:
68:
65:
62:
58:
55:
52:
48:
41:
37:
27:
22:
16:
1586:
1577:Ratification
1555:
1547:
1539:
1531:
1496:
1477:
1469:
1461:
1453:
1445:
1437:
1429:
1421:
1413:
1394:
1386:
1378:
1370:
1362:
1354:
1346:
1311:
1305:MWAA v. CAAN
1303:
1295:
1287:
1279:
1262:Carr v. Saul
1260:
1252:
1234:
1233:
1214:
1208:Lucia v. SEC
1206:
1198:
1190:
1182:
1174:
1155:
1147:
1139:
1131:
1123:
1104:
1096:
1088:
1080:
1072:
1064:
1056:
1048:
1040:
1032:
952:
909:
891:
881:
869:. Retrieved
865:
855:
843:. Retrieved
839:
829:
819:
815:(in Italian)
810:
798:. Retrieved
794:
784:
768:No. 12–1281
764:
753:
747:D.C. Circuit
742:
730:. Retrieved
720:
708:. Retrieved
704:
694:
682:. Retrieved
672:
660:. Retrieved
650:
638:. Retrieved
628:
616:. Retrieved
612:
602:
597: (2014).
583:
579:
558:
546:
536:
518:
507:
497:
494:
484:
482:
474:
451:
436:
427:
416:Please help
411:verification
408:
377:
342:
341:
325:
323:
302:Sharon Block
298:Barack Obama
271:
270:
269:
257:Laws applied
223:
216:Samuel Alito
211:
199:
187:
176:John Roberts
158:D.C. Circuit
119:Case history
78:
53:
15:
561:Orrin Hatch
366:labor union
350:distributor
249:Concurrence
228:Elena Kagan
1609:Categories
728:. oyez.org
571:References
549:Harry Reid
320:Background
91:U.S. LEXIS
89:538; 2014
60:Docket no.
840:USA Today
508:pro forma
498:pro forma
466:Sotomayor
430:June 2016
160:affirmed.
136:D.C. Cir.
87:L. Ed. 2d
70:Citations
1012:case law
908:Text of
892:NBC News
871:June 26,
866:POLITICO
845:June 26,
800:June 26,
773:Archived
732:March 3,
710:March 3,
684:March 3,
662:March 3,
640:March 3,
618:June 26,
559:Senator
519:Justice
500:sessions
462:Ginsburg
452:Justice
241:Majority
99:Argument
525:Roberts
458:Kennedy
390:Opinion
364:with a
143:Holding
64:12-1281
1591:(1994)
1560:(2023)
1552:(2012)
1544:(2010)
1536:(1994)
1501:(1986)
1482:(2021)
1474:(2020)
1466:(2010)
1458:(1988)
1450:(1958)
1442:(1936)
1434:(1926)
1426:(1897)
1418:(1886)
1399:(1903)
1391:(1901)
1383:(1900)
1375:(1891)
1367:(1890)
1359:(1880)
1351:(1839)
1316:(1994)
1308:(1991)
1300:(1976)
1292:(1928)
1284:(1893)
1265:(2021)
1257:(1995)
1238:(2014)
1219:(2021)
1211:(2018)
1203:(1997)
1195:(1991)
1187:(1879)
1179:(1878)
1160:(1920)
1152:(1890)
1144:(1888)
1136:(1888)
1128:(1867)
1109:(2020)
1101:(2018)
1093:(2017)
1085:(1932)
1077:(1900)
1069:(1898)
1061:(1885)
1053:(1878)
1045:(1856)
1037:(1803)
946:
940:
937:
931:
928:
925:Justia
922:
531:, and
529:Thomas
521:Scalia
468:, and
454:Breyer
374:quorum
226:
224:·
222:
214:
212:·
210:
202:
200:·
198:
190:
188:·
186:
916:
590:
537:arise
533:Alito
470:Kagan
347:Pepsi
124:Prior
77:513 (
918:U.S.
873:2014
847:2014
802:2014
734:2014
712:2014
686:2014
664:2014
642:2014
620:2014
592:U.S.
308:and
129:F.3d
127:705
93:4500
80:more
75:U.S.
73:573
914:573
595:513
588:573
420:by
324:In
132:490
1611::
912:,
890:.
864:.
838:.
793:.
703:.
611:.
586:,
527:,
464:,
460:,
316:.
1002:e
995:t
988:v
894:.
875:.
849:.
804:.
736:.
714:.
688:.
666:.
644:.
622:.
443:)
437:(
432:)
428:(
414:.
329:,
134:(
83:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.