Supreme Court will hear dispute over presidential appointments
WASHINGTON — A routine labor dispute at a soft-drink bottling company in Yakima, Wash., has now bubbled up to the Supreme Court, posing a serious challenge to presidential powers.
In a longer-than-usual oral argument Monday, justices will weigh the appointments that presidents can make during a Senate recess. It’s a unique civics test that has drawn the interest of politicians, states and business leaders, not to mention constitutional scholars of all stripes.
“On its face, it looks like a little tool, this tool about recess appointments,” Nicholas Rosenkranz, a professor at the Georgetown University Law Center, said at a Federalist Society briefing, “but … it shifts the balance of power, because appointments are a big bargaining chip.”
The case is specifically important for Yakima-based Noel Canning and the National Labor Relations Board, whose members are appointed by the president. It’s also crucial for hundreds of other companies that have a beef with the NLRB. More broadly, the case could tilt future relations between Congress and the White House.
Underscoring the stakes, 45 Republican senators led by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky have been allotted additional time during the 90-minute oral argument.
Senators “have a powerful stake in ensuring that the executive’s claim of power to make appointments unilaterally, which the (Constitution’s) framers deliberately withheld, is repudiated,” attorney Miguel Estrada wrote in a brief on behalf of the GOP senators.
A family-owned firm that’s part of the larger Noel Corp., Noel Canning ran afoul of the NLRB in February 2012, when the board upheld an administrative judge’s ruling against the company in a contract dispute with Teamsters Local 760.
Two of the three labor board members ruling against Noel Canning, Democrat Sharon Block and Republican Terence Flynn, had been appointed by President Barack Obama in January 2012. They had not, however, been confirmed by the Senate.
Instead, facing Senate Republicans’ intransigence, Obama gave recess appointments to the two nominees. The Constitution authorizes presidents to make such appointments “during the Recess of the Senate, which shall expire at the end of their next session.”
Senate Republicans have joined Noel Canning in challenging the appointments’ legitimacy. So have South Carolina and 16 other right-to-work states, where conservative officials are unhappy with some NLRB decisions. If the challengers win, any NLRB decisions made by Block and Flynn would be cast into doubt.
“They will have to go back and revisit these cases,” said attorney John Elwood, a former Justice Department official. “It will be hundreds and hundreds.”
Myriad challenges already have been lodged, by employers ranging from Pennsylvania’s Lancaster Symphony Orchestra and the University of Southern California’s Keck Hospital, to a manufacturing facility in Lakeland, Fla., called Maxpak. The challenges are on hold pending a Supreme Court decision in the Noel Canning case.
A Noel Canning win also could undercut actions taken at the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau by Richard Cordray, who was initially given a recess appointment to head the agency many Republicans oppose.
But first, the high court must figure out what’s a recess and what’s a vacancy.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that for appointment purposes, a “recess” is only between the first and second session of a Congress. For instance, the first session of the current Congress expired Dec. 26, 2013, and the second session commenced Jan. 3, 2014.
Rules for posting comments
Comments posted below are from readers. In no way do they represent the view of Stephens Media LLC or this newspaper. This is a public forum.
Comments may be monitored for inappropriate content but the newspaper is under no obligation to do so. Comment posters are solely responsible under the Communications Decency Act for comments posted on this Web site. Stephens Media LLC is not liable for messages from third parties.
IP and email addresses of persons who post are not treated as confidential records and will be disclosed in response to valid legal process.
Do not post:
- Potentially libelous statements or damaging innuendo.
- Obscene, explicit, or racist language.
- Copyrighted materials of any sort without the express permission of the copyright holder.
- Personal attacks, insults or threats.
- The use of another person's real name to disguise your identity.
- Comments unrelated to the story.
If you believe that a commenter has not followed these guidelines, please click the FLAG icon below the comment.