Gurumurthy Kalyanaram – Reports on The US Supreme
Court Decision on the authority of the U.S. President to make
appointments when the Congress is in recess. Gurumurthy Kalyanaram NYIT
Former Dean and former NYIT and UT Dallas professor Gurumurthy Kalyanaram reports on the recent important US Supreme Court decision on U.S. President’s authority to make appointments without Congressional approval when the Congress is in recess. Gurumurthy Kalyanaram UT Dallas
In a lawsuit filed by Noel Canning, Canning challenged the constitutional validity of the appointments made by President Obama to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) when the U.S. Congress was in recess. The Washington D.C. appeals court and the lower District Court ruled in favor Canning holding that the President’s appointments were not valid. Gurumurthy Kalyanaram Lawsuit
Upon appeal, in further reviewing the said lawsuit, the US Supreme Court affirmed that the President’s appointments to NLRB were not valid because the “recess” was “not of sufficient length” (i.e., too short and specifically only three days) and not consistent with the Constitution’s text and healthy practice. Specifically, the Court held that “The Recess Appointments Clause authorizes the president to fill any existing vacancy during any recess – whether occurring during or between sessions of Congress – of sufficient length. However, for purposes of the clause, the Senate is in session whenever it indicates that it is, as long as – under its own rules – it retains the capacity to transact Senate business.”
The Supreme Court, unlike the lower courts, did not invalidate the recess appointment of the President but merely defined the “recess” as one of sufficient length. Relying on historical practice extending over 150 years, the Court held that both inter- and intra-session recess appointments are valid as long as the recess was of "sufficient length." That length, according to the Court, is presumptively at least ten days. Moreover, the vacancy doesn't have to occur during the recess.
The overall the Supreme Court’s decision was predictable, and the decision was unanimous, 9-0. The case is National Labor Relations Board, Petitioner v. Noel Canning, et al.
Former Dean and former NYIT and UT Dallas professor Gurumurthy Kalyanaram reports on the recent important US Supreme Court decision on U.S. President’s authority to make appointments without Congressional approval when the Congress is in recess. Gurumurthy Kalyanaram UT Dallas
In a lawsuit filed by Noel Canning, Canning challenged the constitutional validity of the appointments made by President Obama to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) when the U.S. Congress was in recess. The Washington D.C. appeals court and the lower District Court ruled in favor Canning holding that the President’s appointments were not valid. Gurumurthy Kalyanaram Lawsuit
Upon appeal, in further reviewing the said lawsuit, the US Supreme Court affirmed that the President’s appointments to NLRB were not valid because the “recess” was “not of sufficient length” (i.e., too short and specifically only three days) and not consistent with the Constitution’s text and healthy practice. Specifically, the Court held that “The Recess Appointments Clause authorizes the president to fill any existing vacancy during any recess – whether occurring during or between sessions of Congress – of sufficient length. However, for purposes of the clause, the Senate is in session whenever it indicates that it is, as long as – under its own rules – it retains the capacity to transact Senate business.”
The Supreme Court, unlike the lower courts, did not invalidate the recess appointment of the President but merely defined the “recess” as one of sufficient length. Relying on historical practice extending over 150 years, the Court held that both inter- and intra-session recess appointments are valid as long as the recess was of "sufficient length." That length, according to the Court, is presumptively at least ten days. Moreover, the vacancy doesn't have to occur during the recess.
The overall the Supreme Court’s decision was predictable, and the decision was unanimous, 9-0. The case is National Labor Relations Board, Petitioner v. Noel Canning, et al.
No comments:
Post a Comment