Term: 2013
Docket: 12-1281
Nlrb v. Noel Canning
- Pro
12-1281 NLRB V. NOEL CANNING DECISION BELOW: 705 F.3d 490 IN ADDITION TO THE QUESTIONS PRESENTED BY THE PETITION, THE PARTIES ARE DIRECTED TO BRIEF AND ARGUE THE FOLLOWING QUESTION: WHETHER THE PRESIDENT’S RECESS-APPOINTMENT POWER MAY BE EXERCISED WHEN THE SENATE IS CONVENING EVERY THREE DAYS IN PRO FORMA SESSIONS. CERT. GRANTED 6/24/2013 QUESTION PRESENTED: The Recess Appointments Clause of the Constitution provides that "[t]he 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." Art. II, § 2, C1. 3. The questions presented are as follows: 1. Whether the President's recess-appointment power may be exercised during a recess that occurs within a session of the Senate, or is instead limited to recesses that occur between enumerated sessions of the Senate. 2. Whether the President's recess-appointment power may be exercised to fill vacancies that exist during a recess, or is instead limited to vacancies that first arose during that recess. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 12-1115
The U.S. Supreme Court case NLRB v. Noel Canning (2013) revolved around the interpretation of the Constitution's Recess Appointments Clause, which allows the president to make temporary appointments during Senate recesses without its advice and consent. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), whose members were appointed by President Obama during a short break in Senate proceedings, ruled against Noel Canning, a soft drink bottler and distributor. However, Noel Canning appealed this decision arguing that these appointments were unconstitutional as they weren't made during an official Senate recess. In 2014, the Supreme Court unanimously held that while presidents may fill up vacancies during both intersession recesses (between two sessions of Congress) and intrasession recesses (breaks within a session), such breaks must last at least ten days for it to be considered as "recess". Furthermore, only those vacancies arising during such qualifying breaks can be filled using this power. As Obama’s appointments didn’t meet these criteria - having been made on January 4th when there was merely a three-day gap in pro forma sessions - they were deemed invalid.
In the dissenting opinion for NLRB v. Noel Canning, Justice Scalia argued that the majority's interpretation of the Recess Appointments Clause was overly broad and inconsistent with its original meaning. He contended that recess appointments should only be made during inter-session recesses (the breaks between formal sessions of Congress), not intra-session recesses (breaks within a session). Furthermore, he believed these appointments should only fill vacancies that arise during such inter-session recesses rather than any existing at the time of such a break. The justice criticized the majority for relying on historical practice to justify an expansive reading of presidential power, arguing this approach undermined constitutional separation-of-powers principles by allowing executive encroachment on Senate appointment authority. Instead, he advocated for strict adherence to textualist principles in interpreting constitutional provisions.
