Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Canning
Headline: Court limits the President’s recess appointment power, rules January 2012 appointments invalid, blocking three appointees and nullifying NLRB action while clarifying pro forma break rules.
Holding: The Court held that the Recess Appointments Clause covers both intra-session and inter-session recesses and pre-existing vacancies, but January 2012 pro forma sessions counted as session time so the three appointments were invalid.
- Makes short pro forma breaks too brief to allow recess appointments.
- Can invalidate agency actions taken by officers appointed during such breaks.
- Gives the Senate clearer control by using pro forma sessions to block recess appointments.
Summary
Background
Noel Canning, a Pepsi-Cola distributor, refused to sign a union contract and lost before the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). He asked a federal appeals court to set that NLRB order aside, arguing the Board lacked a lawful three-member quorum because the President had appointed three members during a brief January 2012 break. The Senate had declared twice-weekly pro forma sessions from December through January, and the appointments were made between two such pro forma days.
Reasoning
The Court addressed three plain questions: whether the Recess Appointments Clause covers short breaks inside a session, whether it covers vacancies that existed before a recess, and whether pro forma sessions count as sessions. The Court said the Clause can apply to both intra-session and inter-session recesses and can cover pre-existing vacancies. But it also held the Senate is in session for purposes of the Clause when it says it is and still can do business under its rules. Because the Senate’s pro forma sessions retained the capacity to transact business, the January 3–6 interval was a three-day recess, too short to trigger the Clause. The Court therefore found the January 2012 appointments unauthorized and affirmed the invalidation of the NLRB action that relied on those appointees.
Real world impact
The ruling makes short pro forma breaks an unreliable basis for unilateral recess appointments, threatens the validity of agency actions taken by similarly appointed members, and preserves the Senate’s ability to block appointments by holding sessions. The decision is final on these points but does not foreclose future disputes about longer recesses or unusual emergencies.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Scalia wrote a separate opinion concurring in the judgment: he agreed the appointments were invalid but argued for a narrower rule—that the Clause applies only to breaks between formal sessions and to vacancies that first arise during a recess. He warned against expanding executive appointment power.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?