Supreme Court Limits President Obama’s Appointment Powers

“The Senate is in session when it says that it is.”

The United States Supreme Court announced a ruling in the case Hall v. Florida, finding that the state had adopted too rigid a cutoff in deciding who is eligible to be spared the death penalty because of intellectual disabilities, May 27, 2014 in Washington, DC.
National Journal
Matt Berman Brian Resnick
See more stories about...
Matt Berman Brian Resnick
June 26, 2014, 6:14 a.m.
Re­lated Story: The Su­preme Court Rules on Abor­tion Clin­ic Buf­fer Zones

In a un­an­im­ous de­cision, the Su­preme Court on Thursday lim­ited the pres­id­ent’s power to make re­cess ap­point­ments for va­can­cies in the ex­ec­ut­ive branch. The case, Na­tion­al Labor Re­la­tions Board v. Noel Can­ning et al., spe­cific­ally re­lated to three ap­point­ments Obama made in 2012 to the NLRB while the Sen­ate was in pro forma ses­sions, con­ven­ing every three days. As the Court sees it, for the Sen­ate to truly be in re­cess, it would have to be out for at least 10 days.

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

The Court’s sum­mary states (em­phas­is ours) “The Re­cess Ap­point­ments Clause em­powers the Pres­id­ent to fill ex­ist­ing va­cancy dur­ing any re­cess — in­tra-ses­sion or inter-ses­sion — of suf­fi­cient length.” But the ques­tion here is wheth­er the Sen­ate was ac­tu­ally in re­cess. “A Sen­ate re­cess that is so short that it does not re­quire the con­sent of the House un­der that Clause is not long enough to trig­ger the Pres­id­ent’s re­cess-ap­point­ment power.”

As the Court holds, the pro forma ses­sions like the one Obama used to ap­point the NLRB mem­bers are full ses­sions, as long as that’s what the Sen­ate says. Or, as the Court puts it, “the Sen­ate is in ses­sion when it says that it is.”

“We con­clude that we can­not ig­nore these pro forma ses­sions,” Brey­er wrote.

As Tom Gold­stein writes at SCOTUS­b­log, the de­cision sig­ni­fic­antly lim­its pres­id­en­tial power. While the pres­id­ent can still make re­cess ap­point­ments without Sen­ate con­firm­a­tion when the Sen­ate says it’s in re­cess, the House or Sen­ate “can take the Sen­ate out of re­cess and force it to hold a ‘pro forma ses­sion’ that will block any re­cess ap­point­ment.” Which means, the party in power of the House or Sen­ate will be able to block re­cess ap­point­ments eas­ily.

There is a lot in the bal­ance here, from what the de­cision means for NLRB de­cisions since the ap­point­ments were made to what it means for the NLRB it­self. And in his opin­ion, Brey­er made it clear that he knows the stakes. 

“We have not pre­vi­ously in­ter­preted the Clause,” Brey­er writes, re­fer­ring to the Re­cess Ap­point­ments Clause in Art­icle II of the Con­sti­tu­tion, “and when do­ing so for the first time in more than 200 years, we must hes­it­ate to up­set the com­prom­ises and work­ing ar­range­ments that the elec­ted branches of Gov­ern­ment them­selves have reached.”

In case you’re won­der­ing, here’s that clause in full:

The Pres­id­ent shall have Power to fill up all Va­can­cies that may hap­pen dur­ing the Re­cess of the Sen­ate, by grant­ing Com­mis­sions which shall ex­pire at the End of their next Ses­sion.

In the view of the Court, as writ­ten by Brey­er, “pro forma ses­sions count as ses­sions, not as peri­ods of re­cess. 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. The Sen­ate met that stand­ard here.”

In his con­cur­rence (which was joined by Roberts, Thomas, and Alito), Scalia makes the case that the Court’s opin­ion was too nar­row. Rather than al­low pres­id­ents to make ap­point­ments dur­ing breaks 10 days or longer, Scalia, and the Court con­ser­vat­ives who joined his opin­ion, hold that a “re­cess” is just the peri­od between two ses­sions of Con­gress.

I would hold that “the Re­cess” is the gap between ses­sions and that the ap­point­ments at is­sue here are in­val­id be­cause they un­dis­putedly were made dur­ing the Sen­ate’s ses­sion. The Court’s con­trary con­clu­sion — that “the Re­cess” in­cludes “breaks in the midst of a ses­sion,” ante, at 9 — is in­con­sist­ent with the Con­sti­tu­tion’s text and struc­ture, and it re­quires ju­di­cial fab­ric­a­tion of vague, un­ad­min­is­trable lim­its on the re­cess-ap­point­ment power (thus defined) that over­step the ju­di­cial role.

Scalia and his con­ser­vat­ive col­leagues hold that a “re­cess” is just the peri­od between two ses­sions of Con­gress, not something that’s just a 10-day break or longer. They take is­sue with a “col­lo­qui­al” defin­i­tion of “re­cess” that’s used in cases that, as they see it, are really just ad­journ­ments dur­ing a ses­sion. Us­ing “re­cess” dur­ing these times “leaves the re­cess-ap­point­ment power without a tex­tu­ally groun­ded prin­ciple lim­it­ing the time of its ex­er­cise,” Scalia writes.

Scalia writes that the Court’s de­cision risks trans­form­ing “the re­cess-ap­point­ment power from a tool care­fully de­signed to fill a nar­row and spe­cif­ic need in­to a weapon to be wiel­ded by fu­ture Pres­id­ents against fu­ture Sen­ates.”

Brey­er strongly dis­agreed, con­sid­er­ing the his­tory of re­cess ap­point­ments gran­ted dur­ing a broad­er range of Sen­ate re­cesses. “Justice Scalia would render il­le­git­im­ate thou­sands of re­cess ap­point­ments reach­ing all the way back to the found­ing era,” Brey­er wrote. “More than that: Call­ing the Clause an ‘ana­chron­ism,’ he would ba­sic­ally read it out of the Con­sti­tu­tion. He per­forms this act of ju­di­cial ex­cision in the name of liberty.”

Sen­ate Minor­ity Lead­er Mitch Mc­Con­nell was pre­dict­ably pleased with the Court’s de­cision. “The ad­min­is­tra­tion has a tend­ency to abide by laws that it likes and to dis­reg­ard those it doesn’t,” he said. “I was proud to lead the ef­fort to de­fend the Sen­ate against the pres­id­ent’s un­pre­ced­en­ted power grab.”

But as Scalia writes, re­cess ap­point­ments aren’t just an Obama thing:

The So­li­cit­or Gen­er­al has iden­ti­fied 22 such ap­point­ments made by Pres­id­ents Hard­ing, Coolidge, Hoover, and Frank­lin Roosevelt be­tween 1921 and 1944…. In­tra-ses­sion re­cess ap­point­ments ex­per­i­enced a brief hey­day after World War II, with Pres­id­ent Tru­man mak­ing about 150 such ap­point­ments to ci­vil­ian po­s­i­tions and sev­er­al thou­sand to mil­it­ary posts from 1945 through 1950…. Pres­id­ent Eis­en­hower made only 43 in­tra-ses­sion re­cess ap­point­ments … after which the prac­tice sank back in­to re­l­at­ive ob­scur­ity. Pres­id­ents Kennedy, Lyn­don John­son, and Ford made none, while Nix­on made just 7…. The prac­tice rose again in the last dec­ades of the 20th cen­tury: Pres­id­ent Carter made 17 in­tra-ses­sion re­cess ap­point­ments, Re­agan 72, George H. W. Bush 37, Clin­ton 53, and George W. Bush 135…. When the So­li­cit­or Gen­er­al filed his brief, Pres­id­ent Obama had made 26…. Even ex­clud­ing Tru­man’s mil­it­ary ap­point­ments, roughly 90 per­cent of all the in­tra-ses­sion re­cess ap­point­ments in our his­tory have been made since 1945.

In a state­ment about the de­cision, Sen­ate Ma­jor­ity Lead­er Harry Re­id said the opin­ion makes his re­cent changes to the Sen­ate’s rules around ex­ec­ut­ive nom­in­ees vi­tal. “Without that re­form and with today’s rul­ing, a small but vo­cal minor­ity would have more power than ever to block qual­i­fied nom­in­ees from get­ting a simple up-or-down vote on the floor.”

{{ BIZOBJ (video: 5048) }}

What We're Following See More »
STAFF PICKS
These (Supposed) Iowa and NH Escorts Tell All
2 hours ago
NATIONAL JOURNAL AFTER DARK

Before we get to the specifics of this exposé about escorts working the Iowa and New Hampshire primary crowds, let’s get three things out of the way: 1.) It’s from Cosmopolitan; 2.) most of the women quoted use fake (if colorful) names; and 3.) again, it’s from Cosmopolitan. That said, here’s what we learned:

  • Business was booming: one escort who says she typically gets two inquiries a weekend got 15 requests in the pre-primary weekend.
  • Their primary season clientele is a bit older than normal—”40s through mid-60s, compared with mostly twentysomething regulars” and “they’ve clearly done this before.”
  • They seemed more nervous than other clients, because “the stakes are higher when you’re working for a possible future president” but “all practiced impeccable manners.”
  • One escort “typically enjoy[s] the company of Democrats more, just because I feel like our views line up a lot more.”
Source:
STATE VS. FEDERAL
Restoring Some Sanity to Encryption
2 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

No matter where you stand on mandating companies to include a backdoor in encryption technologies, it doesn’t make sense to allow that decision to be made on a state level. “The problem with state-level legislation of this nature is that it manages to be both wildly impractical and entirely unenforceable,” writes Brian Barrett at Wired. There is a solution to this problem. “California Congressman Ted Lieu has introduced the ‘Ensuring National Constitutional Rights for Your Private Telecommunications Act of 2016,’ which we’ll call ENCRYPT. It’s a short, straightforward bill with a simple aim: to preempt states from attempting to implement their own anti-encryption policies at a state level.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
What the Current Crop of Candidates Could Learn from JFK
2 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

Much has been made of David Brooks’s recent New York Times column, in which confesses to missing already the civility and humanity of Barack Obama, compared to who might take his place. In NewYorker.com, Jeffrey Frank reminds us how critical such attributes are to foreign policy. “It’s hard to imagine Kennedy so casually referring to the leader of Russia as a gangster or a thug. For that matter, it’s hard to imagine any president comparing the Russian leader to Hitler [as] Hillary Clinton did at a private fund-raiser. … Kennedy, who always worried that miscalculation could lead to war, paid close attention to the language of diplomacy.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Hillary Is Running Against the Bill of 1992
2 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

The New Covenant. The Third Way. The Democratic Leadership Council style. Call it what you will, but whatever centrist triangulation Bill Clinton embraced in 1992, Hillary Clinton wants no part of it in 2016. Writing for Bloomberg, Sasha Issenberg and Margaret Talev explore how Hillary’s campaign has “diverged pointedly” from what made Bill so successful: “For Hillary to survive, Clintonism had to die.” Bill’s positions in 1992—from capital punishment to free trade—“represented a carefully calibrated diversion from the liberal orthodoxy of the previous decade.” But in New Hampshire, Hillary “worked to juggle nostalgia for past Clinton primary campaigns in the state with the fact that the Bill of 1992 or the Hillary of 2008 would likely be a marginal figure within today’s Democratic politics.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Trevor Noah Needs to Find His Voice. And Fast.
3 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

At first, “it was pleasant” to see Trevor Noah “smiling away and deeply dimpling in the Stewart seat, the seat that had lately grown gray hairs,” writes The Atlantic‘s James Parker in assessing the new host of the once-indispensable Daily Show. But where Jon Stewart was a heavyweight, Noah is “a very able lightweight, [who] needs time too. But he won’t get any. As a culture, we’re not about to nurture this talent, to give it room to grow. Our patience was exhausted long ago, by some other guy. We’re going to pass judgment and move on. There’s a reason Simon Cowell is so rich. Impress us today or get thee hence. So it comes to this: It’s now or never, Trevor.”

Source:
×