Court Rejects Recess Appointments to Labor Board
Published: January 25, 2013 - New York Times
WASHINGTON — In a
ruling that called into question nearly two centuries of presidential
grecessh appointments that bypass the Senate confirmation process, a federal
appeals court ruled on Friday that President Obama violated the Constitution
when he installed three officials on the National Labor Relations Board a year
ago.
The ruling was a blow to the administration and a
victory for Mr. Obamafs Republican critics – and a handful of liberal ones – who
had accused Mr. Obama of improperly claiming that he could make the appointments
under his executive powers. The administration had argued that the president
could decide that senators were really on a lengthy recess even though the
Senate considered itself to be meeting in gpro formah sessions.
But the court went beyond the narrow dispute over pro
forma sessions and issued a far more sweeping ruling than expected. Legal
specialists said its reasoning would virtually eliminate the recess appointment
power for all future presidents when it has become increasingly difficult for
presidents to win Senate confirmation for their nominees. In recent years,
senators have more frequently balked at consenting to executive appointments.
President George W. Bush made about 170 such appointments, including John R.
Bolton to be ambassador to the United Nations and two appeals court judges,
William H. Pryor Jr. and Charles W. Pickering Sr.
gIf this opinion stands, I think it will fundamentally
alter the balance between the Senate and the president by limiting the
presidentfs ability to keep offices filled,h said John P. Elwood, who handled
recess appointment issues for the Justice Department during the Bush
administration. gThis is certainly a red-letter day in presidential appointment
power.h
The ruling, if not overturned, could paralyze the
National Labor Relations Board, an independent agency that oversees labor
disputes, because it would lack a quorum without the three Obama appointments in
January 2012.
The rulingfs immediate impact was to invalidate one
action by the board involving a union fight with a Pepsi-Cola bottler in
Washington State, but it raises the possibility that all the boardfs decisions
from the past year could be nullified. The decision also casts a legal cloud
over Mr. Obamafs appointment that same day of Richard Cordray as the director of
the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
A White House spokesman said, gWe disagree strongly
with the decisionh by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit, adding that it conflicted with other court rulings and well
over a century of government practice. Administration officials did not
immediately say whether they would appeal the ruling or wait for other appeals
courts to issue decisions in similar lawsuits filed across the country
challenging other labor board actions.
The three judges on the appeals court panel, all of
them appointed by Republicans, rejected the Justice Departmentfs argument that
Mr. Obama could make the labor board appointments by declaring the Senatefs pro
forma sessions during its winter break — in which a single senator came into the
empty chamber every three days to bang the gavel — a sham. The
Republican-controlled House of Representatives had refused to let the
Democratic-controlled Senate adjourn for more than three days.
gAn interpretation of ethe Recessf that permits the
President to decide when the Senate is in recess would demolish the checks and
balances inherent in the advice-and-consent requirement, giving the President
free rein to appoint his desired nominees at any time he pleases, whether that
time be a weekend, lunch, or even when the Senate is in session and he is merely
displeased with its inaction,h wrote Judge David B. Sentelle. gThis cannot be
the law.h
The panel went on to significantly narrow the
definition of grecess,h for purposes of the presidentfs appointment power. The
judges held that presidents may invoke their recess appointment power only
between formal sessions of Congress – a brief period that usually arises only
once a year – rather than during breaks that arise during a session, like
lawmakersf annual August vacations. Two of the three judges also ruled that the
president may also only use that power to fill a vacancy that opens during the
same recess.
The ruling also called into question nearly 200 years
of previous such appointments by administrations across the political spectrum.
The executive branch has been making intrasession appointments since 1867 and
has been using recess appointments to fill vacancies that opened before a recess
since 1823. Among other things, Mr. Elwood noted, it called into question every
ruling made by several federal appeals court judges who were installed by recess
power.
gYou know there are people sitting in prisons around
the country who will become very excited when they learn of this ruling,h he
said.