Breaking: Supreme Court unanimously rejects Obama recess appointments

posted at 10:22 am on June 26, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

The Supreme Court dropped a huge bomb on the Obama administration, unanimously rebuking the President for arrogating to himself the determination of when Congress is in session for the purpose of making recess appointments. According to reports on the opinion, the court may have taken a middle path on what a recess actually is, toning down one appellate court ruling that only allowed for recess appointments between formal sessions:

The US Supreme Court today limited a president’s power to make recess appointments when the White House and the Senate are controlled by opposite parties, scaling back a presidential authority as old as the republic.

The case arose from a political dispute between President Obama and Senate Republicans, who claimed he had no authority to put three people on the National Labor Relations Board in January 2012 when the Senate was out of town.

He used a president’s power, granted by the Constitution, to “fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate.” But the Republicans said the Senate was not in recess at the time the appointments were made, because every three days a senator went into the chamber, gaveled it to order, and then immediately called a recess.

By a unanimous vote, the Supreme Court agreed that the Senate was not in recess, holding that it’s up to both houses of Congress to define when they’re in session or in recess. As a result of the decision, the Senate can frustrate a president’s ability to make recess appointments simply by holding periodic pro forma sessions, a tactic used in recent years by both political parties.

According to NBC’s Pete Williams, the opinion provides a timeframe for Congress and the White House to follow in the future:

That will certainly make it easier to play keep-away from the President. A minority on the court wanted to limit the recess power to strictly the period between sessions, as did one appellate court, but in the end a 5-4 majority decided to allow for a looser interpretation of “recess.” Certainly, if Congress wants to stop recess appointments from being made, it will be fairly easy to gavel into session every nine days.

The question will now be what happens to the NLRB rulings during the period when recess appointments provided a quorum. The answer appears to be that they can be successfully challenged and set aside. That was the context of the challenge to the recess appointments in the first place — lawsuits against regulation created in that period that alleged they were illegitimate. This ruling means that the Supreme Court unanimously agrees on that point, a severe rebuke to the “constitutional scholar” President and his abuse of power. More practically, though, the recent appointments to the NLRB can reconstitute that regulation if they wish, so the victory may be short lived for the plaintiffs.

Update: The decision in NLRB v Noel Canning et al can be found here.

Supreme Court decision


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Last words

“I concur in judgement only”

Bmore on June 26, 2014 at 3:37 PM

Obama is a constitutional scholar?

sorrowen on June 26, 2014 at 3:55 PM

Verbie posting more than three times = he’s really pissed.

itsspideyman on June 26, 2014 at 3:58 PM

From Ace.

I assume he was kidding about that last point. If not, then this is impeachable.

But let’s assume he was “kidding” — actually pandering to the White Aspirational Urban Progressives that make up his base.

All this asshole does is:

1, Fail,

and 2, troll the Twitter #TrendingTopics lists to see what TV shows he should mention in order to pander to his frivolous, TV-crazed base.

In turn, his idiot progressive zealots — who fancy themselves intellectual — shower him with love.

Just.

For Watching.

The Same TV shows.

That They Do.

Astonishing.

Our first True Intellectual President.

He’s Maureen Dowd with a flouncier jump-shot.

Bmore on June 26, 2014 at 4:39 PM

SC decisions on recess appointments? Iraq? Nuclear Iran? Crimea? Lerner & IRS? VA scandal? Benghazi? You talk of unimportant things.Let’s concentrate on big ticket items such as renaming the Redskins, gay marriage and global warming.

MaiDee on June 26, 2014 at 4:39 PM

Figures a comment from Ace would hit the mill here at HA. Allah!!! A little help, please, you tweetied it. ; )

Bmore on June 26, 2014 at 4:40 PM

Thank you. ; )

Bmore on June 26, 2014 at 4:46 PM

man somebody in the white house is going to get wee weed up.

warmairfan on June 26, 2014 at 5:00 PM

“Surely, you understand that the Supreme Court ruling, at 9-0, is a great victory for The Won,” she voxsplained. “Why, it’s unanimous, a rare thing in today’s partisan world driven by Koch greed and obstinate Republicans. We can certainly agree this is a fabulous win for the President.”

-Coming soon to a media outlet near you!!!

DublOh7 on June 26, 2014 at 5:24 PM

How about this?…. O unlawfully appointed these hacks. So he is personally responsible for whatever costs were incurred since their installation;; hmmmm?

PaCadle on June 26, 2014 at 6:06 PM

Now if America would have just followed suit and rejected this loser.

CW on June 26, 2014 at 6:32 PM

How about this?…. O unlawfully appointed these hacks. So he is personally responsible for whatever costs were incurred since their installation;; hmmmm?

PaCadle on June 26, 2014 at 6:06 PM

Love it. Find some way around Sovereign immunity and that would be poetic justice.

V7_Sport on June 26, 2014 at 8:38 PM

Has the IRS been alerted..?

d1carter on June 26, 2014 at 10:28 AM

Double-secret audits for all SCOTUS justices in 3..2..1..

s1im on June 26, 2014 at 9:34 PM

So, what is the result? Are the appointees fired? Why is this a serious ruling?

virgo on June 28, 2014 at 12:10 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3