Federal court ruling slashes presidential recess-appointment power

Story here. Apparently this means about 300 decisions made the National Labor Relations Board over the past year can be challenged and nullified, because the board lacked a quorum of legitimately appointed members.

But wait, it gets betterworse:

Complete court opinion by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit here.

Inevitably this ruling is going to go up to the Supreme Court. How will/should they rule? What happens if the DCC court’s ruling stands?

U.S. Constitution, Article Two, Section Two: “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.”

So, they’re overthrowing 190 years of precedent in the name of Congressional (read: GOP) supremacy?

[sarcasm] This is why I voted for Obama. The courts never wanted to follow the rules as written when a WASP was in the White House, but with their fear and hatred of a black man, they’ll actually get us back to strict construction! [/sarcasm]

“Mr. Obama has made about 32 such appointments, including that of Richard Cordray, as director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. President Bill Clinton made 139, while Mr. Bush made 171

Bolding mine

What’s really revolting is the timing of this ruling, now that The Other has won a second term. But totally in character with the revulsion I feel with gerrymandering, voter suppression, filibustering ad infinitum.

It seems like the Senate cheated, by recessing and saying, “No, no, we aren’t recessing, we’re still open for business, really.” Obama challenged them on it.

It isn’t as if he snuck through appointments during a short holiday recess – the Senate has gone home for July 4th, so now I can appoint a whole bunch of judges. That would, obviously, be something the courts should overturn. But when the Senate fraudulently maintains a pretense of activity, solely to bypass the President’s constitutional power of recess appointments, I see them as the sinners, not the Pres.

I hope the Supreme Court overrules the lower court, and issues a stern warning to both sides not to play these kinds of games.

It really depends on what you think the purpose of the recess appointment power is.

If it’s to provide balance against Congressional intransigence then I think this ruling is completely wrong. It gives the Senate the ability to stop all appointments for the entirety of a presidential term by using pro-forma sessions to avoid recess.

If it’s to provide a means of executing the law in an era when Congress was not in session and in some times could not be in session due to difficulties of travel, then it’s pretty much an outdated clause and the court’s ruling is probably correct.

Myself, I prefer the former, but could possibly be persuaded it’s the latter.

Ultimately I’d prefer if the courts stayed out of this type of thing entirely and let the political process (read: elections) settle these political questions.

If only there had been a landmark decision early in the country’s history that defined the boundary between the constitutionally separate executive and judicial branches of government.

We actually went over this back when Obama made the appointments.

I have yet to see any single shred of evidence the recess appointment was intended as a “check” on Congress’ power to approve appointments.

Let’s try to step away from politics for a moment, if Obama wasn’t President, the Republicans didn’t exist, or any other thing you might need in order to think as an unbiased person interested in the actual issues and not as a partisan leftist. Which of these scenarios seems most likely:

  1. The framers, creating the concept of Senate appointments for some Federal offices as a means to insure the executive is never able to operate without legislative influence and oversight, intended the recess appointment for when the Congress was physically unable to analyze a candidate and vote on the matter.

  2. The framers, having specifically created a check on executive power in the form of Senate confirmations, intentionally gave the President a way to avoid that check entirely whenever the Senate didn’t want to let him do whatever the hell he wanted.

I just fail to see, if you don’t look at this as a Republican versus Democrats issue, how option two in any way seems more likely than option one. Further, note that this business with appointments also applies to high military officers and etc. The concept and its reasons are actually elucidated well historically: it was to prevent the President from becoming a monarch. I’m not saying we have to worry about that from Obama, but the founders had a very different perspective. Some appointments last for a long time, and wield a lot of power. There was genuine concern if a President could appoint all the high officers in the military and all the high officers in the executive branch, with no congressional oversight, that the President could basically rig the government to be loyal to him the person and not the United States. In the UK at the time various government officers and military officers had to swear an oath to the monarch, note that in America no one swears an oath to an individual or even an office, but to the Constitution, this oath includes a promise to obey the President’s orders, but it’s an important distinction that you are swearing your oath to the Constitution and the country itself, not the person of the President.

Now, I’m not saying it might be nice if the President could ignore the Senate sometimes, especially as much as the filibuster is abused. But I wish more people could divorce what they want for political reasons from what is the actual law based on any reasonable reading of history or the constitution (which was not written in language designed to be indecipherable to laymen.)

Yes, I remember the discussions at the time, and yours is a reasonable position.

I’m just not sure how that plays with a Senate that refuses to ever recess and also refuses to consider any nomination for a post. Are you saying that the Senate could, in theory, prevent the President from appointing anyone for an entire term?

Or, to come at it from another direction, doesn’t your option (1) include situations in which the Senate claims to be in session (or rather, not in recess) but cannot advise and consent because they don’t have a quorum?

Also, I should repeat the thrust what I said here in January of last year. Comparing this action by Obama to the Bush and Clinton presidencies is actually not apt. Both Clinton and Bush appointed some controversial figures during congressional recesses, and both appointed more total people during recesses than Obama.

However, those were during periods of time when Congress was indisputably out of session.

In 2007, when the Democrats took control of the Senate, they made the decision to block all future Bush recess appointments by not adjourning. Bush never challenged them on this.

When the Republicans won back the House in 2010 they gained the power to keep congress in session perpetually (note congress as distinct from the Senate.) Under congressional rules, the Senate cannot technically go into recess without the House’s permission, and I believe they can’t fail to hold sessions for more than three days. So the Republicans in the House, by keeping the House “open for business” basically legally required that the Senate gavel in and out at least once every three days. (Many of these Senate sessions would last mere seconds.)

In response to this activity, Obama did something Bush did not do–he decided to bypass the logjam by asserting that even though the House said Congress wasn’t adjourned, that the Congress was de facto adjourned, and he’d be making his appointments anyway.

As I noted at the time, this is distinct from anything Bush did, and was in fact unique in American history, because it was a case of the executive saying it was his discretion to determine when Congress was in session and when it wasn’t.

As I pointed out a year ago, the problem Obama faced was not unique in American history, but you don’t look to Bush for the history lesson. You instead look back to Theodore Roosevelt. During Roosevelt’s presidency, you had the exact same situation, the Senate refused to adjourn, and refused to confirm a large number of the President’s appointments. Roosevelt used an entirely different loophole. Namely, that as you transition from one Congress to the next you have to open the new Congress formally. If you’ve opened the new Congress you have to adjourn the previous Congress. His opponents in Congress obviously realized that, so they adjourned the previous congress and the opened the new one right away, to prevent him from making any recess appointments. But Teddy was one step ahead of them, he had already signed paperwork saying that “effective in the moment between” those two sessions, he was appointing some two hundred persons to Federal offices. In his case, it worked because it was never legally challenged.

Obama made a decision to avail himself of a different loophole, and a court has ruled against him. As I said a year ago, a lot of stuff relating to congressional sessions, recess appointments, loopholes to get around a congress trying to block all appointments and etc are basically the stuff of tradition and untested activity. Roosevelt’s actions were never legally contested, so we have no idea if they would hold up to judicial review. Obama’s decision was contested, so it’s a whole different ball game.

I think what I said at the time was both sides were using vaguely supportable parliamentary tricks to achieve their ends. I’m not a huge fan of the Senate as an institution and even less a fan of the filibuster. I wish there would be a change to Senate rules to at, the very least, require a straight up and down votes on appointment confirmations. But I don’t run the U.S. Senate, Harry Reid does.

Now, as to your theory, I think yes a Senate could refuse to confirm anyone. I don’t actually think the President was given recess appointment power to bypass Senate oversight. I think the framers were probably well informed by how Parliament slowly gained more and more power in the United Kingdom. Through power of the purse, Parliament could deny the monarch funding. He would then be limited to his personal income to run the government. (Under Charles II he ruled under such a situation for something like 20 years IIRC, because part of his personal income at the time including an archaic right to levy some duties on ships or something and he manipulated it such that he was effectively raising taxes without Parliament’s approval.) If the framers intended it to be possible for a Congress to refuse to approve spending, to use the “nuclear option” with the power of the purse, and I do believe they intended that based on what would have been their expert knowledge of British/English parliamentary history, it doesn’t stand to reason they’d have a problem with refusing to make any appointments. [The point being, if they intended for congress to theoretically be able to shut down the whole government, why would they necessarily balk at the Senate being able to block all appointments?]

I think the framers intended the President to be a lot weaker than he is, and that’s why they have a lot of checks over the executive while he has fewer over them, and his can typically be overridden with supermajorities.

Now, that being said, I also think where the framers intended supermajorities they provided for them as a constitutional requirement. So I don’t think the use of the filibuster to require a de facto supermajority on basically all legislation is in the spirit of how our government should be ran, either.

But what it comes down to is, in response to behavior I don’t really support, the President did something legally murky. I said it was murky at the time, because it’s never been tested before and thus there was some real likelihood it could be declared unconstitutional by a court.

There’s other unresolved constitutional issues out there as well (the war powers act, for example.)

That all sounds about right, based on a little reading I’ve been doing since my first post.

I do worry that the current political situation, if SCOTUS confirms this ruling, will make recess appointments non-existent if the opposing party holds either house of congress. Perhaps that will eventually lead to a change of filibuster rules on presidential appointments…

Except that, from what I can tell, this ruling is broad enough to invalidate even what you consider indisputable. Upholding the sham of pro forma sessions as legitimate is one thing, but this ruling went further than that, and declared all recess appointments outside of the recess of the term invalid. From all the various commentary I’ve seen, Bush’s appointment of John Bolton as UN Ambassador, for example, would be invalid.

Hell, earlier in Obama’s term, the Supreme Court heard a case about whether or not the NLRB was allowed to function while filibusters kept the board from having a quorum. There was this exchange during oral arguments (PDF, the part I’m talking about starts on page 49):

Which seems to indicate the the Supreme Court expects the recess appointment power to actually exist. It would certainly leave the door open for a narrower ruling about the sham pro forma sessions, but the DC Circuit didn’t issue a ruling like that.

I’ve followed the SCOTUS long enough to know it’s a fool’s game to try and predict how they’d rule based on oral arguments. SCOTUS justices all have keen legal minds, which seem prone (and this is my experience from dealing with much less keen legal minds) towards hypothetical and mental excursions to explore a point or a line of reasoning. Those explorations don’t necessarily indicate the personal inclination a justice has in regard to making a ruling.

I haven’t read the text of the D.C. Circuit Court’s ruling, but I wouldn’t really disagree with them that the recess appointment power was intended only for the long, formal recesses that happen once per year. I think that this goes back to what I was saying about informal traditions. There is an informal tradition of the President using the recess appointment as a tool to bypass Senate oversight in times of disagreement, and in those recesses being anytime the Congress leaves town. But that’s never been seriously tested. When this all came up a year ago the most definitive thing I could find on what constituted a recess for constitutional purposes was a Clinton era DOJ report on what it personally considered a recess (I believe it said an adjournment of three days or more, or more than three days, I can’t recall now.) But that’s not legally binding or precedential in any legal sense.

This was an unclarified point of Constitutional law that, once put in the hands of the courts, was likely to be clarified. I don’t think the ruling necessarily defies logic, either. If we go back to why there was ordinarily a lengthy recess, it was because congressmen had to travel through horse and buggy or riverboat or etc to get to Washington, a slow process. It was recognized it wasn’t appropriate for them to spend all their time in Washington as they needed to interact with constituents back home. So lengthy, required recesses were an understood part of how the national legislature would work. It is in that context that allowing the President to make temporary appointments without convening the Senate would be a necessity, in the eyes of the 18th century.

Does the D.C. Circuit have en banc appeals? If so, will the executive go to them first for this one?

I obviously don’t think this is legally definitive, but there has been a tendency for powers that the legislative branch is unable or unwilling to exercise to drift into the hands of he executive branch. In this case, the Senate has massively forgone its power to advise and consent to Presidential appointments by refusing to bring them up for a vote at all. It could be ignored while it was at a level that didn’t threaten the proper functioning of government, but it has easily cleared that hurdle: no ATF director for years, no NLRB quorum for years, a genuine crisis in understaffed lower courts - the last two of which the Supreme Court is plainly aware of.

My WAG is that the C.J. will leave some window to allow the executive branch to enable the proper functioning of the government in cases where the legislative branch shirks its duty. He may be Big Business’ man on the court, and a reliable vote for Big Money in any case where a big-money interest squares off against a party not connected to big money, but Big Money is getting nervous these days about just how close to the edge the wingnuts are going to take us.

Why inevitably?

By the clear text up there, the court decision is exactly correct. The vacancy has to happen during the Recess. And since it is “the Recess” and not “a Recess”, a lunch-hour recess does not qualify.

“Lunch recess” is a straw man.

That said, I think this is a case where good government and constitutional government have come to be at odds. We have Senators who seek a pretext to confirm as few appointees as possible.

Are there career civil servants actually doing the jobs here, as acting So-and-so’s? Or are there some functions which are just going completely unperformed?

Whether or not they are “doing their jobs” is up to the people to decide. The people who elect them. That’s no reason for a judge to make an end-run around the constitution. I don’t see anything at odds here. The constitution doesn’t address motives, just actions.

I think part of the problem is the usage of the term “recess”. We are used to “recess” being a short break in a session. You recess for lunch or recess for the evening if the session is going to last a second day. There is good evidence that when used with the US Congress, a recess only occurs between the two sessions of Congress thus when leaving for a holiday weekend, Congress may be on a break but they are not recessed.

Here’s the text from the constitution:

Seems to me unless the vacancy happens during the recess, then the prez needs to suck it up and get the Advise and Consent of the Senate.