Jump to content

Recess appointment: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile app edit Android app edit
GreenC bot (talk | contribs)
 
(30 intermediate revisions by 24 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{short description|An appointment by the President of a federal official when the U.S. Senate is in recess}}
{{short description|Appointment by the president of a federal official when the U.S. Senate is in recess}}
{{Use mdy dates|date=April 2012}}
{{Use mdy dates|date=April 2012}}
{{United States Senate}}
{{United States Senate}}


In the [[United States]], a '''recess appointment''' is an appointment by the [[President of the United States|president]] of a [[Officer of the United States|federal official]] when the [[United States Senate|U.S. Senate]] is in [[Recess (motion)|recess]]. Under the [[Constitution of the United States|U.S. Constitution]]'s [[Appointments Clause]], the President is empowered to nominate, and with the [[advice and consent]] (confirmation) of the Senate, make appointments to high-level policy-making positions in federal departments, agencies, boards, and commissions, as well as to the [[Federal judiciary of the United States|federal judiciary]]. A recess appointment under [[Article II, Section 2, Clause 3]] of the Constitution is an alternative method of appointing officials that allows the temporary filling of offices during periods when the Senate is not in session. It was anticipated that the Senate would be away for months at a time, so the ability to fill vacancies in important positions when the Senate is in recess and unavailable to provide advice and consent was deemed essential to maintain government function, as described by [[Alexander Hamilton]] in [[Federalist_No._67|No. 67]] of ''[[The Federalist Papers]]''.
In the [[United States]], a '''recess appointment''' is an appointment by the [[President of the United States|president]] of a [[Officer of the United States|federal official]] when the [[United States Senate|U.S. Senate]] is in [[Recess (motion)|recess]]. Under the [[Constitution of the United States|U.S. Constitution]]'s [[Appointments Clause]], the president is empowered to nominate, and with the [[advice and consent]] (confirmation) of the Senate, make appointments to high-level policy-making positions in federal departments, agencies, boards, and commissions, as well as to the [[Federal judiciary of the United States|federal judiciary]]. A recess appointment under [[Article II, Section 2, Clause 3]] of the Constitution is an alternative method of appointing officials that allows the temporary filling of offices during periods when the Senate is not in session. It was anticipated that the Senate would be away for months at a time, so the ability to fill vacancies in important positions when the Senate is in recess and unavailable to provide advice and consent was deemed essential to maintain government function, as described by [[Alexander Hamilton]] in [[Federalist No. 67|No. 67]] of ''[[The Federalist Papers]]''.


In modern times, the Senate is in session nearly year-round, making the recess appointment mechanism far less necessary or useful for upkeep of government function. Nonetheless, in recent times this power has also been controversially used as a political tool to temporarily install an unpopular nominee by sidestepping the Senate's role in the confirmation process;<ref name=CRS-Hogue>{{cite web| last=Hogue| first=Henry B.| title=Recess Appointments: Frequently Asked Questions| date=March 11, 2015| url=https://www.senate.gov/CRSpubs/3d313cc2-9515-4533-b1f0-3f762cd09007.pdf| work=CRS Reports| publisher=[[Congressional Research Service]]| location=Washington, D.C.| accessdate=February 10, 2018}}</ref> the Senate has taken measures from time to time to prevent a president from making recess appointments, specifically by holding ''[[pro forma]]'' sessions. The [[Supreme Court of the United States|Supreme Court]] affirmed that ''pro forma'' sessions are sufficient to prevent recess appointments and addressed other intricacies of the practice in ''[[NLRB v. Noel Canning]]'' (2014). Appointments made during a recess must be confirmed by the Senate by the end of the next session of [[United States Congress|Congress]], or the appointment expires. In current practice, this means that a recess appointment must be approved by roughly the end of the next calendar year and thus could last for almost two years, if made early enough in the year.
In modern times, the Senate is in session nearly year-round, making the recess appointment mechanism far less necessary or useful for upkeep of government function. Nonetheless, in recent times this power has also been controversially used as a political tool to temporarily install an unpopular nominee by sidestepping the Senate's role in the confirmation process;<ref name=CRS-Hogue>{{cite web| last=Hogue| first=Henry B.| title=Recess Appointments: Frequently Asked Questions| date=March 11, 2015| url=https://www.senate.gov/CRSpubs/3d313cc2-9515-4533-b1f0-3f762cd09007.pdf| work=CRS Reports| publisher=[[Congressional Research Service]]| location=Washington, D.C.| access-date=February 10, 2018}}</ref> the Senate has taken measures from time to time to prevent a president from making recess appointments, specifically by holding [[Pro forma session|''pro forma'' sessions]]. The [[Supreme Court of the United States|Supreme Court]] affirmed that ''pro forma'' sessions are sufficient to prevent recess appointments and addressed other intricacies of the practice in ''[[NLRB v. Noel Canning]]'' (2014). Appointments made during a recess must be confirmed by the Senate by the end of the next session of [[United States Congress|Congress]], or the appointment expires. In current practice, this means that a recess appointment must be approved by roughly the end of the next calendar year and thus could last for almost two years, if made early enough in the year. In situations where a recess appointment is prevented, a lower official frequently assumes the duties of the position in an [[acting (law)|acting]] role.


==Constitutional text==
==Constitutional text==
Line 16: Line 16:
Presidents since [[George Washington]] have made recess appointments. Washington appointed [[South Carolina]] judge [[John Rutledge]] as [[Chief Justice of the United States]] during a congressional recess in 1795. Because of Rutledge's political views and occasional mental illness, however, the Senate rejected his nomination, and Rutledge attempted [[suicide]] and resigned. Almost every president has used recess appointments to appoint judges, over 300 such judicial recess appointments before 2000, including [[List of Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States|ten Supreme Court justices]].<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Arnold |first=Tim |date=Spring 2011 |title=Recess Appointments |url=https://www.law.virginia.edu/static/uvalawyer/html/alumni/uvalawyer/spr11/recess.htm |journal=UVA Lawyer}}</ref>
Presidents since [[George Washington]] have made recess appointments. Washington appointed [[South Carolina]] judge [[John Rutledge]] as [[Chief Justice of the United States]] during a congressional recess in 1795. Because of Rutledge's political views and occasional mental illness, however, the Senate rejected his nomination, and Rutledge attempted [[suicide]] and resigned. Almost every president has used recess appointments to appoint judges, over 300 such judicial recess appointments before 2000, including [[List of Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States|ten Supreme Court justices]].<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Arnold |first=Tim |date=Spring 2011 |title=Recess Appointments |url=https://www.law.virginia.edu/static/uvalawyer/html/alumni/uvalawyer/spr11/recess.htm |journal=UVA Lawyer}}</ref>


[[New Jersey]] judge [[William J. Brennan]] was appointed to the Supreme Court by President [[Dwight D. Eisenhower]] in 1956 by a recess appointment. This was done in part with an eye on the presidential campaign that year; Eisenhower was running for reelection, and his advisors thought it would be politically advantageous to place a northeastern [[Roman Catholic Church|Catholic]] on the court. Brennan was promptly confirmed when the Senate came back into session. Eisenhower, in a recess appointment, designated [[Charles W. Yost]] as [[United States Ambassador to Syria]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.msg-history.com/detachments/syria/syria_damascus.html|title=Marine Embassy Security Guard historical archives|website=Msg-history.com|accessdate=December 10, 2016}}</ref> Eisenhower made two other recess appointments, Chief Justice [[Earl Warren]] and Associate Justice [[Potter Stewart]].
[[New Jersey]] judge [[William J. Brennan]] was appointed to the Supreme Court by President [[Dwight D. Eisenhower]] in 1956 by a recess appointment. This was done in part with an eye on the presidential campaign that year; Eisenhower was running for reelection, and his advisors thought it would be politically advantageous to place a northeastern [[Roman Catholic Church|Catholic]] on the court. Brennan was promptly confirmed when the Senate came back into session. Eisenhower, in a recess appointment, designated [[Charles W. Yost]] as [[United States Ambassador to Syria]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.msg-history.com/detachments/syria/syria_damascus.html|title=Marine Embassy Security Guard historical archives|website=Msg-history.com|access-date=December 10, 2016}}</ref> Eisenhower made two other recess appointments, Chief Justice [[Earl Warren]] and Associate Justice [[Potter Stewart]].


According to the [[Congressional Research Service]], President [[Ronald Reagan]] made 240 recess appointments (average 30 per year) and President [[George H. W. Bush]] made 77 recess appointments (average 19 per year). George H. W. Bush appointed [[Lawrence Eagleburger]] as [[United States Secretary of State|Secretary of State]] during a recess in 1992; Eagleburger, as [[United States Deputy Secretary of State|Deputy Secretary of State]], had in effect filled that role after [[James Baker]] resigned.
According to the [[Congressional Research Service]], President [[Ronald Reagan]] made 240 recess appointments (average 30 per year) and President [[George H. W. Bush]] made 77 recess appointments (average 19 per year). George H. W. Bush appointed [[Lawrence Eagleburger]] as [[United States Secretary of State|Secretary of State]] during a recess in 1992; Eagleburger, as [[United States Deputy Secretary of State|Deputy Secretary of State]], had in effect filled that role after [[James Baker]] resigned.
Line 22: Line 22:
President [[Bill Clinton]] made 139 recess appointments (average of 17 per year).
President [[Bill Clinton]] made 139 recess appointments (average of 17 per year).


President [[George W. Bush]] made 171 recess appointments (average of 21 per year). During the last two years of the Bush administration, Democratic [[Senate Majority Leader]] [[Harry Reid]] sought to prevent further recess appointments. Bush promised not to make any during the August recess that year, but no agreement was reached for the two-week Thanksgiving break, in November 2007. As a result, Reid did not allow adjournments of more than three days from then until the end of the Bush presidency by holding ''[[pro forma#United States|pro forma]]'' sessions.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://thomas.loc.gov/home/ds/s1102.html |title=Days in Session Calendars U.S. Senate – 110th Congress 2nd Session |website=Thomas.loc.gov |date=December 31, 2008 |accessdate=May 30, 2011}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://democrats.senate.gov/calendar/2008-12.html |title=Senate Calendar – December |website=Democrats.senate.gov |accessdate=May 30, 2011 |url-status=dead |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20110606164135/http://democrats.senate.gov/calendar/2008-12.html |archivedate=June 6, 2011 |df=mdy-all }}</ref> Prior to this, there had been speculation that [[James W. Holsinger]] would receive a recess appointment as [[Surgeon General of the United States]].<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/16/politics/politico/thecrypt/main3516002.shtml |title=Reid To Bush: No Recess Appointments Wanted |website=Cbsnews.com |date=November 16, 2007 |accessdate=May 30, 2011}}</ref>
President [[George W. Bush]] made 171 recess appointments (average of 21 per year). During the last two years of the Bush administration, Democratic [[Senate Majority Leader]] [[Harry Reid]] sought to prevent further recess appointments. Bush promised not to make any during the August recess that year, but no agreement was reached for the two-week Thanksgiving break, in November 2007. As a result, Reid did not allow adjournments of more than three days from then until the end of the Bush presidency by holding ''[[pro forma#United States|pro forma]]'' sessions.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://thomas.loc.gov/home/ds/s1102.html |title=Days in Session Calendars U.S. Senate – 110th Congress 2nd Session |website=Thomas.loc.gov |date=December 31, 2008 |access-date=May 30, 2011 |archive-date=May 6, 2009 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090506095036/http://thomas.loc.gov/home/ds/s1102.html |url-status=dead }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://democrats.senate.gov/calendar/2008-12.html |title=Senate Calendar – December |website=Democrats.senate.gov |access-date=May 30, 2011 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110606164135/http://democrats.senate.gov/calendar/2008-12.html |archive-date=June 6, 2011 }}</ref> Prior to this, there had been speculation that [[James W. Holsinger]] would receive a recess appointment as [[Surgeon General of the United States]].<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/16/politics/politico/thecrypt/main3516002.shtml |title=Reid To Bush: No Recess Appointments Wanted |website=Cbsnews.com |date=November 16, 2007 |access-date=May 30, 2011}}</ref>


President Barack Obama made 32 recess appointments (through February 1, 2015), all to full-time
President Barack Obama made 32 recess appointments (through February 1, 2015), all to full-time
positions.<ref name=CRS-Hogue/> Over what would have traditionally been the 2011–12 winter recess of the [[112th United States Congress|112th Congress]], the Republican-controlled [[United States House of Representatives|House of Representatives]] did not assent to recess, specifically to block [[Richard Cordray]]'s appointment as Director of the [[Consumer Financial Protection Bureau]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/01/gop-hints-at-legal-challenge-to-consumer-watchdog-recess-appointment.php|title=GOP Furious As Obama Recess Appoints Cordray|website=Tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com|accessdate=December 10, 2016}}</ref> Both the House and Senate continued to hold ''pro forma'' sessions.<ref>{{cite news| url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970204257504577150661990141658?mod=wsj_share_tweet | work=The Wall Street Journal | first=Michael | last=Mcconnell | title=Democrats and Executive Overreach | date=January 10, 2012}}</ref>
positions.<ref name=CRS-Hogue/> Over what would have traditionally been the 2011–12 winter recess of the [[112th United States Congress|112th Congress]], the Republican-controlled [[United States House of Representatives|House of Representatives]] did not assent to recess, specifically to block [[Richard Cordray]]'s appointment as Director of the [[Consumer Financial Protection Bureau]].<ref>{{cite web|url=https://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/gop-furious-as-obama-recess-appoints-cordray |title=GOP Furious As Obama Recess Appoints Cordray |website=talkingpointsmemo.com |date=January 4, 2012 |access-date=December 10, 2016}}</ref> Both the House and Senate continued to hold ''pro forma'' sessions.<ref>{{cite news| url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970204257504577150661990141658 | work=[[The Wall Street Journal]] | first=Michael | last=Mcconnell | title=Democrats and Executive Overreach | date=January 10, 2012}}</ref>


In August 2017, nine ''pro forma'' sessions were set up to block President [[Donald Trump]] from making recess appointments. The concern was that Trump might dismiss [[United States Attorney General|Attorney General]] [[Jeff Sessions]], and try to name his successor while Congress was in recess.<ref>[http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/345261-senate-blocks-trump-from-making-recess-appointments-over-break Senate blocks Trump from making recess appointments over break]</ref> ''Pro forma'' sessions continued to be held until January 2019. They were held on December 31, 2018,<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-claims-without-evidence-that-most-of-the-people-not-getting-paid-in-partial-government-shutdown-are-democrats/2018/12/27/afbc992a-09cc-11e9-88e3-989a3e456820_story.html|title=Shutdown set to extend into new year after Congress punts on budget, border votes|last=Werner|first=Erica|last2=Kane|first2=Paul|date=December 27, 2018|website=The Washington Post|url-status=live|access-date=December 27, 2018|last3=Sonmez|first3=Felicia|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181227183104/https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-claims-without-evidence-that-most-of-the-people-not-getting-paid-in-partial-government-shutdown-are-democrats/2018/12/27/afbc992a-09cc-11e9-88e3-989a3e456820_story.html|archive-date=December 27, 2018|df=mdy-all}}</ref> and again on January 2, 2019, the last full day of the [[115th United States Congress]], that lasted several minutes.
In August 2017, nine ''pro forma'' sessions were set up to block President [[Donald Trump]] from making recess appointments. The concern was that Trump might dismiss [[United States Attorney General|Attorney General]] [[Jeff Sessions]], and try to name his successor while Congress was in recess.<ref>{{cite web |title=Senate blocks Trump from making recess appointments over break |date=2017-08-03 |website=[[The Hill (newspaper)|The Hill]] |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221221155200/https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/345261-senate-blocks-trump-from-making-recess-appointments-over-break/ |archive-date=2022-12-21 |url-status=live |url=https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/345261-senate-blocks-trump-from-making-recess-appointments-over-break/}}</ref> ''Pro forma'' sessions continued to be held until January 2019. They were held on December 31, 2018,<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-claims-without-evidence-that-most-of-the-people-not-getting-paid-in-partial-government-shutdown-are-democrats/2018/12/27/afbc992a-09cc-11e9-88e3-989a3e456820_story.html|title=Shutdown set to extend into new year after Congress punts on budget, border votes|last1=Werner|first1=Erica|last2=Kane|first2=Paul|date=December 27, 2018|newspaper=[[The Washington Post]]|url-status=live|access-date=December 27, 2018|last3=Sonmez|first3=Felicia|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181227183104/https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-claims-without-evidence-that-most-of-the-people-not-getting-paid-in-partial-government-shutdown-are-democrats/2018/12/27/afbc992a-09cc-11e9-88e3-989a3e456820_story.html|archive-date=December 27, 2018 }}</ref> and again on January 2, 2019, the last full day of the [[115th United States Congress]], that lasted several minutes.


On April 15, 2020, while Congress was holding ''pro forma'' sessions due to the recess during the [[COVID-19 pandemic in the United States|COVID-19 pandemic]], President Trump threatened to [[Prorogation#United States|prorogue]] both houses of Congress in order to make recess appointments for vacant positions such as the [[Federal Reserve Board of Governors]] and the [[Director of National Intelligence]].<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/493044-trump-threatens-to-adjourn-both-chambers-of-congress|title=Trump threatens to adjourn both chambers of Congress|last=Zilbermints|first=Regina|date=2020-04-15|website=TheHill|language=en|access-date=2020-04-19}}</ref> However, the U.S. Constitution only grants the President the authority to prorogue Congress if it is unable to agree on a date of adjournment, and both [[Speaker of the United States House of Representatives|Speaker of the House]] [[Nancy Pelosi]] and [[Party leaders of the United States Senate|Senate Majority Leader]] [[Mitch McConnell]] have indicated that they will not alter the planned date of January 3, 2021.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/04/explainer-trump-authority-adjourn-congress-200416182101206.html|title=Explainer: Does Trump have the authority to adjourn US Congress?|website=www.aljazeera.com|access-date=2020-04-19}}</ref>
On April 15, 2020, while Congress was holding ''pro forma'' sessions due to the recess during the [[COVID-19 pandemic in the United States|COVID-19 pandemic]], President Trump threatened to [[Prorogation#United States|adjourn]] both houses of Congress in order to make recess appointments for vacant positions such as the [[Federal Reserve Board of Governors]] and the [[Director of National Intelligence]].<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/493044-trump-threatens-to-adjourn-both-chambers-of-congress/|title=Trump threatens to adjourn both chambers of Congress|last=Zilbermints|first=Regina|date=2020-04-15|website=[[The Hill (newspaper)|The Hill]]|language=en|access-date=2020-04-19}}</ref> However, the U.S. Constitution only grants the president the authority to adjourn Congress if it is unable to agree on a date of adjournment, and both [[Speaker of the United States House of Representatives|Speaker of the House]] [[Nancy Pelosi]] and [[Party leaders of the United States Senate|Senate Majority Leader]] [[Mitch McConnell]] indicated that they would not alter the planned date of January 3, 2021.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/04/explainer-trump-authority-adjourn-congress-200416182101206.html|title=Explainer: Does Trump have the authority to adjourn US Congress?|website=www.aljazeera.com|access-date=2020-04-19}}</ref>


==Congressional action to prevent recess appointments==
==Congressional action to prevent recess appointments==
The Senate or House may seek to block potential recess appointments by not allowing the Senate to adjourn under [[Article One of the United States Constitution#Clause 4: Adjournment|Article 1, Section 5, Clause 4 of the Constitution]], which provides that both Houses must consent to an adjournment.<ref>Article 1, Section 5, Clause 4: Adjournment of the Constitution says: "Neither House ... shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days".</ref> This tactic is especially used when either House of Congress is controlled by a different party than that of the President, the Senate or House may seek to block potential recess appointments by not allowing the Senate to adjourn for more than three days, blocking a longer adjournment that would allow recess appointments to be made.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=13993|title=Obama's Sham Constitutionalism|date=January 5, 2012|website=Cato.org|accessdate=December 10, 2016}}</ref>
The Senate or House may seek to block potential recess appointments by not allowing the Senate to adjourn under [[Article One of the United States Constitution#Clause 4: Adjournment|Article 1, Section 5, Clause 4 of the Constitution]], which provides that both Houses must consent to an adjournment.<ref>Article 1, Section 5, Clause 4: Adjournment of the Constitution says: "Neither House ... shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days".</ref> This tactic is especially used when either House of Congress is controlled by a different party than that of the president, the Senate or House may seek to block potential recess appointments by not allowing the Senate to adjourn for more than three days, blocking a longer adjournment that would allow recess appointments to be made.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=13993|title=Obama's Sham Constitutionalism|date=January 5, 2012|website=Cato.org|access-date=December 10, 2016}}</ref>


In order to combat this tactic from Congress the President can dismiss Congress under Article II section 3 of the constitution that states
In order to combat this tactic from Congress, the president can adjourn Congress under Article II section 3 of the constitution that states
{{quote|"He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, '''and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper;''' he shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers; he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the United States." {{Emphasis added}}}}
{{quote|"He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, '''and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper;''' he shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers; he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the United States." {{Emphasis added}}}}


According to Article II Section 2 of the constitution the President can appoint or fill up the vacancies that happen during a recess without the Senate's approval, but those positions will end at the end of the next legislative session unless Congress approves the appointment.<ref>https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleii</ref>
According to Article II Section 2 of the Constitution, the president can appoint or fill up the vacancies that happen during a recess without the Senate's approval, but those positions will end at the end of the next legislative session unless Congress approves the appointment.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleii|title = Article II}}</ref>
{{quote|"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."}}
{{quote|"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."}}


===Legality of intra-session appointments===
===Legality of intra-session appointments===
According to Henry B. Hogue, of the [[Congressional Research Service]]'s Government and Finance Division:<ref>[https://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/RS21308.pdf%22Recess] {{dead link|date=December 2016}}</ref>
According to Henry B. Hogue, of the [[Congressional Research Service]]'s Government and Finance Division:<ref>{{cite news |url=https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/details?prodcode=RS21308 |website=senate.gov |title=Recess Appointments: Frequently Asked Questions (RS21308) |date=March 11, 2015}}</ref>


{{quotation|Recent Presidents have made both intersession (between sessions or Congresses) and intrasession (during a recess within a session) recess appointments. Intrasession recess appointments were unusual, however, prior to the 1940s. Intrasession recess appointments have sometimes provoked controversy in the Senate, and there is also an academic literature that has drawn their legitimacy into question.}}
{{quotation|Recent Presidents have made both intersession [between sessions or Congresses] and intrasession [during a recess within a session] recess appointments. Intrasession recess appointments were unusual, however, prior to the 1940s, in part because intrasession recesses were less common at that time. Intrasession recess appointments have sometimes provoked controversy in the Senate, and some academic literature also has called their legitimacy into question. Legal opinions have also varied on this issue over time.}}


It has been argued that as the clause was originally understood, it was expected that if the Senate was in session when an office became vacant, the president would make a standard [[Advice and Consent|advice-and-consent]] appointment at that time.<ref>[http://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=676067083085096094123025069119066078034050019023060074029022107088103020030127091099032060018032059046053098111084016018125102066027021040019070027115098023092070078041003088025077083104120072028068&EXT=pdf PDF, "The Original Meaning of the Recess Appointments Clause"], ''UCLA Law Review'', Volume 52, Number 5 (June 2005), pp. 1487–1578.</ref> In [[Federalist No. 67]], [[Alexander Hamilton]] wrote:<ref>{{cite web|url=http://constitution.org/fed/federa67.htm|title=The Federalist #67|website=Constitution.org|accessdate=December 10, 2016}}</ref>
It has been argued that as the clause was originally understood, it was expected that if the Senate was in session when an office became vacant, the president would make a standard [[Advice and Consent|advice-and-consent]] appointment at that time.<ref>{{cite journal |url=https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=621381 |title=The Original Meaning of the Recess Appointments Clause |journal=UCLA Law Review|volume=52 |number=5 |date=June 2005 |pages=1487–1578 |ssrn=621381 }}</ref> In [[Federalist No. 67]], [[Alexander Hamilton]] wrote:<ref>{{cite web|url=http://constitution.org/fed/federa67.htm|title=The Federalist #67|website=Constitution.org|access-date=December 10, 2016}}</ref>


{{quotation|The ordinary power of appointment is confined to the President and Senate ''jointly'', and can therefore only be exercised during the session of the Senate; but as it would have been improper to oblige this body to be continually in session for the appointment of officers and as vacancies might happen ''in their recess'', which it might be necessary for the public service to fill without delay. ...}}
{{quotation|The ordinary power of appointment is confined to the President and Senate ''jointly'', and can therefore only be exercised during the session of the Senate; but as it would have been improper to oblige this body to be continually in session for the appointment of officers and as vacancies might happen ''in their recess'', which it might be necessary for the public service to fill without delay. ...}}
Line 51: Line 51:
Another argument maintains that recess appointments were to be made only during inter-session recesses, which during the early days of the country lasted between six and nine months, and were therefore required to prevent important offices from remaining unfilled for long periods. The view holds that the current interpretation allows appointments to be made during recesses too brief to justify bypassing the Senate.
Another argument maintains that recess appointments were to be made only during inter-session recesses, which during the early days of the country lasted between six and nine months, and were therefore required to prevent important offices from remaining unfilled for long periods. The view holds that the current interpretation allows appointments to be made during recesses too brief to justify bypassing the Senate.


Historically, presidents tended to make recess appointments when the Senate was adjourned for lengthy periods. Since [[World War II]], presidents have sometimes made recess appointments when Senate opposition appeared strong in the hope that appointees might prove themselves in office and then allow opposition to dissipate. Most recently, however, as partisanship on [[Capitol Hill]] has grown,<ref>{{cite web|title=Portrait of Political Party Polarization|url=http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=8888768|publisher=[[Cambridge University Press]]|accessdate=July 15, 2013|last1=Moody|first1=James|last2=Mucha|first2=Peter J.}}</ref> recess appointments have tended to solidify opposition to the appointee.<ref>{{cite web|title=Navigating the New Politics of Judicial Appointments|url=https://www.law.northwestern.edu/lawreview/v102/n4/1869/LR102n4Stras&Scott.pdf|work=Northwestern University Law Review|publisher=[[Princeton University Press]]|accessdate=July 15, 2013|author=David R. Stras|author2=Ryan W. Scott |year=2007}}</ref>
Historically, presidents tended to make recess appointments when the Senate was adjourned for lengthy periods. Since [[World War II]], presidents have sometimes made recess appointments when Senate opposition appeared strong in the hope that appointees might prove themselves in office and then allow opposition to dissipate. Most recently, however, as partisanship on [[Capitol Hill]] has grown,<ref>{{cite journal|title=Portrait of Political Party Polarization|url=http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=8888768|publisher=[[Cambridge University Press]]|access-date=July 15, 2013|last1=Moody|first1=James|last2=Mucha|first2=Peter J.|journal = Network Science|year = 2013|volume = 1|pages = 119–121|doi = 10.1017/nws.2012.3|s2cid = 3905434}}</ref> recess appointments have tended to solidify opposition to the appointee.<ref>{{cite web|title=Navigating the New Politics of Judicial Appointments|url=https://www.law.northwestern.edu/lawreview/v102/n4/1869/LR102n4Stras&Scott.pdf|work=Northwestern University Law Review|publisher=[[Princeton University Press]]|access-date=July 15, 2013|author=David R. Stras|author2=Ryan W. Scott |year=2007}}</ref>


===Obama's challenge ===
===Obama's challenge ===
Regardless of continuing to hold [[pro forma]] sessions, on January 4, 2012, [[Barack Obama|President Barack Obama]] appointed [[Richard Cordray]] and others as recess appointments.<ref name=SbCOtbsn>
Regardless of the Senate continuing to hold [[pro forma]] sessions, on January 4, 2012, [[Barack Obama|President Obama]] appointed [[Richard Cordray]] and others as recess appointments.<ref name=SbCOtbsn>
{{cite web|url=http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/sns-rt-us-financial-regulation-cordraytre80312j-20120104,0,1634538.story|title=Stymied by Congress, Obama to boldly seat nominees|accessdate=2012-01-05|date=2012-01-04|work=[[Chicago Tribune]]|author1=Clarke, Dave|author2=Matt Spetalnick|name-list-style=amp}}{{dead link|date=December 2017 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}</ref><ref name=DROtNCaCAC>{{cite web|url=http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/04/defying-republicans-obama-to-name-cordray-as-consumer-agency-chief/|title=Defying Republicans, Obama to Name Cordray as Consumer Agency Chief|accessdate=2012-01-05|date=2012-01-04|work=[[The New York Times]]|author1=Cooper, Helene|author2=John H. Cushman, Jr.|name-list-style=amp}}</ref><ref name=BSOACC>{{cite web|url= https://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/us/politics/richard-cordray-named-consumer-chief-in-recess-appointment.html|title=Bucking Senate, Obama Appoints Consumer Chief|accessdate=2012-01-05|date=2012-01-04|work=[[The New York Times]]|last=Cooper|first=Helene|author2=Steinhauer, Jennifer|author2-link=Jennifer Steinhauer}}</ref> [[White House Counsel]] [[Kathryn Ruemmler]] asserted that the appointments were valid, because the ''pro forma'' sessions were designed to, "through form, render a constitutional power of the executive obsolete" and that the Senate was for all intents and purposes recessed.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/04/obama-tempts-fight-over-recess-appointments/|title=Obama Tempts Fight Over Recess Appointments|first=Charlie|last=Savage|website=Thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com|accessdate=December 10, 2016}}</ref> Republicans in the Senate disputed the appointments, with [[Senate Minority Leader]] [[Mitch McConnell]] stating that Obama had "arrogantly circumvented the American people" with the appointments. It was expected that there would be a legal challenge to the appointments.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-financial-regulation-cordray-legal-idUSTRE80328G20120105|title=Analysis: Obama consumer chief decision under a legal cloud|date=January 5, 2012|website=Reuters.com|accessdate=December 26, 2016|via=Reuters}}</ref>
{{cite web|url=http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/sns-rt-us-financial-regulation-cordraytre80312j-20120104,0,1634538.story|archive-url=https://archive.today/20120108080740/http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/sns-rt-us-financial-regulation-cordraytre80312j-20120104,0,1634538.story|url-status=dead|archive-date=January 8, 2012|title=Stymied by Congress, Obama to boldly seat nominees|access-date=2012-01-05|date=2012-01-04|work=[[Chicago Tribune]]|author1=Clarke, Dave|author2=Matt Spetalnick|name-list-style=amp}}</ref><ref name=DROtNCaCAC>{{cite web|url=http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/04/defying-republicans-obama-to-name-cordray-as-consumer-agency-chief/|title=Defying Republicans, Obama to Name Cordray as Consumer Agency Chief|access-date=2012-01-05|date=2012-01-04|work=[[The New York Times]]|author1=Cooper, Helene|author2=John H. Cushman, Jr.|name-list-style=amp}}</ref><ref name=BSOACC>{{cite web|url= https://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/us/politics/richard-cordray-named-consumer-chief-in-recess-appointment.html|title=Bucking Senate, Obama Appoints Consumer Chief|access-date=2012-01-05|date=2012-01-04|work=[[The New York Times]]|last=Cooper|first=Helene|author2=Steinhauer, Jennifer|author2-link=Jennifer Steinhauer}}</ref> [[White House Counsel]] [[Kathryn Ruemmler]] asserted that the appointments were valid, because the ''pro forma'' sessions were designed to, "through form, render a constitutional power of the executive obsolete" and that the Senate was for all intents and purposes recessed.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/04/obama-tempts-fight-over-recess-appointments/|title=Obama Tempts Fight Over Recess Appointments|first=Charlie|last=Savage|website=Thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com|date=January 4, 2012|access-date=December 10, 2016}}</ref> Republicans in the Senate disputed the appointments, with [[Senate Minority Leader]] [[Mitch McConnell]] stating that Obama had "arrogantly circumvented the American people" with the appointments. It was expected that there would be a legal challenge to the appointments.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-financial-regulation-cordray-legal-idUSTRE80328G20120105|title=Analysis: Obama consumer chief decision under a legal cloud|date=January 5, 2012|website=Reuters.com|access-date=December 26, 2016|via=Reuters}}</ref>


On January 6, 2012, the [[United States Department of Justice|Department of Justice]] [[Office of Legal Counsel]] issued an opinion regarding recess appointments and [[pro forma]] sessions, claiming, <blockquote>"The convening of periodic pro forma sessions in which no business is to be conducted does not have the legal effect of interrupting an intrasession recess otherwise long enough to qualify as a "Recess of the Senate" under the Recess Appointments Clause. In this context, the President therefore has discretion to conclude that the Senate is unavailable to perform its advise-and-consent function and to exercise his power to make recess appointments".<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.justice.gov/olc/memoranda-opinions.html |title=Archived copy |accessdate=2012-02-02 |url-status=dead |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20120118145608/http://www.justice.gov/olc/memoranda-opinions.html |archivedate=January 18, 2012 |df=mdy-all }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.justice.gov/olc/2012/pro-forma-sessions-opinion.pdf |title=Archived copy |accessdate=2012-02-02 |url-status=dead |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20120118153021/http://www.justice.gov/olc/2012/pro-forma-sessions-opinion.pdf |archivedate=January 18, 2012 |df=mdy-all }}</ref></blockquote>
On January 6, 2012, the [[United States Department of Justice|Department of Justice]] [[Office of Legal Counsel]] issued an opinion regarding recess appointments and pro forma sessions, claiming, <blockquote>"The convening of periodic pro forma sessions in which no business is to be conducted does not have the legal effect of interrupting an intrasession recess otherwise long enough to qualify as a "Recess of the Senate" under the Recess Appointments Clause. In this context, the President therefore has discretion to conclude that the Senate is unavailable to perform its advise-and-consent function and to exercise his power to make recess appointments".<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.justice.gov/olc/memoranda-opinions.html |title=OLC: Opinions by Date and Title |access-date=2012-02-02 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120118145608/http://www.justice.gov/olc/memoranda-opinions.html |archive-date=January 18, 2012 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.justice.gov/olc/2012/pro-forma-sessions-opinion.pdf |title=Lawfulness of Recess Appointments During a Recess of the Senate Notwithstanding Periodic Pro Forma Sessions |access-date=2012-02-02 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120118153021/http://www.justice.gov/olc/2012/pro-forma-sessions-opinion.pdf |archive-date=January 18, 2012 }}</ref></blockquote>


===Judicial challenges===
===Judicial challenges===
However, this was widely disputed.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://ricochet.com/main-feed/The-Constitution-Is-Clear-On-Recess-Appointments|title=The Constitution Is Clear On Recess Appointments - Ricochet|website=Ricochet.com|accessdate=December 10, 2016}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|author=The Corner The one and only. |url=http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/287264/richard-cordray-use-and-abuse-executive-power-john-yoo |title=Richard Cordray & the Use and Abuse of Executive Power |publisher=National Review |date=2012-01-05 |accessdate=2016-12-10}}</ref> The first such challenge was announced in April 2012, disputing a [[National Labor Relations Board]] ruling made following the Obama appointments.<ref>{{cite news| url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/2chambers/post/senate-gop-joining-legal-action-against-obama-recess-appointments/2012/04/17/gIQAuEJbOT_blog.html | work=The Washington Post | first=Ed | last=O'Keefe | title=Senate GOP joining legal action against Obama recess appointments | date=April 18, 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.legalnewsline.com/news/235859-gop-plans-brief-opposing-obamas-labor-board-appointments |title=Archived copy |accessdate=2012-04-17 |url-status=dead |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20120509151356/http://www.legalnewsline.com/news/235859-gop-plans-brief-opposing-obamas-labor-board-appointments |archivedate=May 9, 2012 |df=mdy-all }}</ref>
However, this was widely disputed.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://ricochet.com/main-feed/The-Constitution-Is-Clear-On-Recess-Appointments|title=The Constitution Is Clear On Recess Appointments - Ricochet|website=Ricochet.com|date=January 5, 2012 |access-date=December 10, 2016}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|author=The Corner The one and only. |url=http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/287264/richard-cordray-use-and-abuse-executive-power-john-yoo |title=Richard Cordray & the Use and Abuse of Executive Power |publisher=National Review |date=2012-01-05 |access-date=2016-12-10}}</ref> The first such challenge was announced in April 2012, disputing a [[National Labor Relations Board]] ruling made following the Obama appointments.<ref>{{cite news| url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/2chambers/post/senate-gop-joining-legal-action-against-obama-recess-appointments/2012/04/17/gIQAuEJbOT_blog.html | newspaper=[[The Washington Post]] | first=Ed | last=O'Keefe | title=Senate GOP joining legal action against Obama recess appointments | date=April 18, 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.legalnewsline.com/news/235859-gop-plans-brief-opposing-obamas-labor-board-appointments |title=GOP plans brief opposing Obama's labor board appointments |access-date=2012-04-17 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120509151356/http://www.legalnewsline.com/news/235859-gop-plans-brief-opposing-obamas-labor-board-appointments |archive-date=May 9, 2012 }}</ref>


On January 25, 2013, in the first circuit case to rule on the validity of the January 4, 2012, appointments, [[David B. Sentelle|Chief Judge David Sentelle]], writing for a unanimous three-judge panel for the [[United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit|U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit]], wrote <blockquote>"an interpretation of 'the Recess' that permits the President to decide when the Senate is in recess would demolish the [[checks and balances]] inherent in the [[Advice and Consent|advice-and-consent]] requirement, giving the President free rein to appoint his desired nominees at any time he pleases, whether that time be a weekend, lunch, or even when the Senate is in session and he is merely displeased with its inaction. This cannot be the law."<ref name="sblog.s3.amazonaws.com"/></blockquote> On June 26, 2014, in a 9–0 ruling, the United States Supreme Court validated this practice of using pro forma sessions to block the president from using the recess appointment authority.
On January 25, 2013, in the first circuit case to rule on the validity of the January 4, 2012, appointments, [[David B. Sentelle|Chief Judge David Sentelle]], writing for a unanimous three-judge panel for the [[United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit|U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit]], wrote <blockquote>"an interpretation of 'the Recess' that permits the President to decide when the Senate is in recess would demolish the [[checks and balances]] inherent in the [[Advice and Consent|advice-and-consent]] requirement, giving the President free rein to appoint his desired nominees at any time he pleases, whether that time be a weekend, lunch, or even when the Senate is in session and he is merely displeased with its inaction. This cannot be the law."<ref name="sblog.s3.amazonaws.com">{{cite web|url=http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/01207461695uide694c75117931832.pdf |title=Noel Canning, A Division of the Noel Corporation, Petitioner v. National Labor Relations Board, Respondent |website=Sblog.s3.amazonaws.com |access-date=2016-12-10}}</ref></blockquote>


Also, on March 16, 2013, the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit|Third Circuit]] joined the D.C. Circuit and held that the March 2010 appointment of [[Craig Becker]] to the NLRB was invalid because he was not appointed between sessions.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/348688/re-third-circuit-ruling-against-presidential-recess-appointment-authority-ammon|title=Re: Third Circuit Ruling Against Presidential Recess-Appointment Authority|website=CNationalreview.com|date=May 17, 2013|access-date=December 10, 2016}}</ref>
Justice Breyer also wrote in ''[[NLRB v. Noel Canning]]'' that the President could force a recess if he had enough congressional support: <blockquote>"The Constitution also gives the President (if he has enough allies in Congress) a way to force a recess. Art. II, §3 ('[I]n Case of Disagreement between [the Houses], with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, [the President] may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper'). Moreover, the President and Senators engage with each other in many different ways [*28] and have a variety of methods of encouraging each other to accept their points of view. Regardless, the Recess Appointments Clause is not designed to overcome serious institutional friction. It simply provides a subsidiary method for appointing officials when the Senate is away during a recess."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www2.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/NLRB_v_Noel_Canning_No_121281_US_June_26_2014_Court_Opinion|title=Bloomberg Law - Document – NLRB v. Noel Canning, 134 S. Ct. 2550, 189 L. Ed. 2d 538, 199 LRRM 3685, 82 U.S.L.W. 4599 (2014), Court Opinionwebsite2.bloomberglaw.com|accessdate=December 10, 2016}}</ref></blockquote>


On June 26, 2014, in a 9–0 ruling, the United States Supreme Court validated this practice of using pro forma sessions to block the president from using the recess appointment authority. Justice [[Stephen Breyer]] wrote that the Constitution allows for the Congress itself to determine its sessions and recesses, that "the Senate is in session when it says it is", and that the President does not have the unilateral right to dictate Congressional sessions and thus make recess appointments.<ref name=9-0>{{cite news |title=Senate 9, President 0 |url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/senate-9-president-0-1403825223 |newspaper=[[The Wall Street Journal]] |date=June 26, 2014 |access-date=September 13, 2021 }}</ref> However, the decision allows the use of recess appointments during breaks within a session for vacancies that existed prior to the break. Justice Breyer also noted that the president could force a recess if he had enough congressional support: <blockquote>"The Constitution also gives the President (if he has enough allies in Congress) a way to force a recess. Art. II, §3 ('[I]n Case of Disagreement between [the Houses], with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, [the President] may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper'). Moreover, the president and Senators engage with each other in many different ways [*28] and have a variety of methods of encouraging each other to accept their points of view. Regardless, the Recess Appointments Clause is not designed to overcome serious institutional friction. It simply provides a subsidiary method for appointing officials when the Senate is away during a recess."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www2.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/NLRB_v_Noel_Canning_No_121281_US_June_26_2014_Court_Opinion|title=Bloomberg Law - Document – NLRB v. Noel Canning, 134 S. Ct. 2550, 189 L. Ed. 2d 538, 199 LRRM 3685, 82 U.S.L.W. 4599 (2014), Court Opinionwebsite2.bloomberglaw.com|access-date=December 10, 2016}}</ref></blockquote>
(On July 16, 2013, the U.S. Senate confirmed Cordray to a five-year term as Director.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.senate.gov/galleries/pdcl|title=Archived copy|accessdate=August 21, 2012|url-status=dead|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20120502100722/https://www.senate.gov/galleries/pdcl|archivedate=May 2, 2012}}</ref>)

Prior to ''[[National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning]]'', there was a [[Circuit split|split]] among the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit|circuit courts]] on the validity of intra-session appointments and on what vacancies can be filled using the Recess Appointment authority. Following the 2003 intra-session appointment of [[William H. Pryor, Jr.]], to the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit|U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit]], a small number of criminal defendants, whose appeals were denied by panels including Pryor, appealed on the basis that Pryor's appointment was invalid. The Eleventh Circuit, in an ''[[en banc]]'' decision in ''Evans v. Stephens''<ref>''Evans v. Stephens'', 387 F.3d 1220 (11th Cir. 2004).</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://media.aclj.org/pdf/041018_evans_summary.pdf |title=Re: Summary of Evans v. Stephens : Order of the Court |date=October 14, 2004 |website=Media.aclj.org |accessdate=2016-12-10}}</ref> held that the Constitution permitted both intra-session recess appointments and recess appointments to fill vacancies that "happened" prior to rather than during the congressional recess.

However, ''NLRB v. Noel Canning'', Circuit docket 12-1115 in the [[United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit|Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit]], appealed a decision made by [[National Labor Relations Board]] (NLRB) members appointed, in what President Obama determined was an intra-session recess was decided in a three-member panel decision on January 25, 2013, that intra-session appointments were unconstitutional because the word "the" before the word "Recess" in the Constitution was determined to mean to limit it to only the inter-session recess, and it further limited the power by limiting it to only those vacancies that "happen" to occur during the inter-session break, not to vacancies that existed prior to the recess.<ref name="sblog.s3.amazonaws.com">{{cite web|url=http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/01207461695uide694c75117931832.pdf |title=Noel Canning, A Division of the Noel Corporation, Petitioner v. National Labor Relations Board, Respondent |website=Sblog.s3.amazonaws.com |accessdate=2016-12-10}}</ref> Also, on March 16, 2013, the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit|Third Circuit]] joined the D.C. Circuit and held that the March 2010 appointment of [[Craig Becker]] to the NLRB was invalid because he was not appointed between sessions.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/348688/re-third-circuit-ruling-against-presidential-recess-appointment-authority-ammon|title=Re: Third Circuit Ruling Against Presidential Recess-Appointment Authority|website=CNationalreview.com|accessdate=December 10, 2016}}</ref>

On June 26, 2014, the [[United States Supreme Court]] rejected both holdings,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://europe.newsweek.com/replacing-scalia-could-obama-make-recess-appointment-427142|title=Replacing Scalia: Could Obama make a recess appointment?|website=Europe.newsweek.com|accessdate=December 10, 2016}}</ref> while also unanimously deciding that President Obama overreached his executive authority in appointing members to the [[NLRB]] while the Senate was still formally in session.<ref name=9-0>"Senate 9, President 0." The Wall Street Journal. Dow Jones & Company, June 26, 2014. Web. June 28, 2014.</ref> Justice [[Stephen Breyer]], in the majority opinion, wrote that the Constitution allows for the Congress itself to determine its sessions and recesses, that "the Senate is in session when it says it is", and that the President does not have the unilateral right to dictate Congressional sessions and thus make recess appointments.<ref name=9-0/> However, the decision allows the use of recess appointments during breaks within a session for vacancies that existed prior to the break.


==See also==
==See also==
Line 89: Line 83:
*[https://ssrn.com/abstract=962762 Kalt, ''Keeping Adjournments in Their Place'', 101 '''Nw. U. L. Rev. Colloquy''' 108 (2007).]
*[https://ssrn.com/abstract=962762 Kalt, ''Keeping Adjournments in Their Place'', 101 '''Nw. U. L. Rev. Colloquy''' 108 (2007).]
* {{Citation |last=O'Keefe |first=Ed |date=January 5, 2012 |title=What is a recess appointment?
* {{Citation |last=O'Keefe |first=Ed |date=January 5, 2012 |title=What is a recess appointment?
|newspaper=[[The Washington Post]] |at=Federal Eye (washingtonpost.com) |accessdate=January 5, 2012
|newspaper=[[The Washington Post]] |at=Federal Eye (washingtonpost.com) |access-date=January 5, 2012
|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/post/what-is-a-recess-appointment/2012/01/04/gIQAA4WCbP_blog.html }}
|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/post/what-is-a-recess-appointment/2012/01/04/gIQAA4WCbP_blog.html }}
* [https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33310.pdf Recess Appointments Made by President George W. Bush, January 20, 2001- October 31, 2008] [[Congressional Research Service]]
* [https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33310.pdf Recess Appointments Made by President George W. Bush, January 20, 2001- October 31, 2008] [[Congressional Research Service]]
Line 99: Line 93:
[[Category:Article Two of the United States Constitution]]
[[Category:Article Two of the United States Constitution]]
[[Category:Clauses of the United States Constitution]]
[[Category:Clauses of the United States Constitution]]
[[Category:Executive branch of the United States government]]
[[Category:Executive branch of the government of the United States]]
[[Category:Presidency of the United States]]
[[Category:Presidency of the United States]]
[[Category:Recess appointments| ]]
[[Category:Recess appointments| ]]

Latest revision as of 06:07, 16 April 2024

In the United States, a recess appointment is an appointment by the president of a federal official when the U.S. Senate is in recess. Under the U.S. Constitution's Appointments Clause, the president is empowered to nominate, and with the advice and consent (confirmation) of the Senate, make appointments to high-level policy-making positions in federal departments, agencies, boards, and commissions, as well as to the federal judiciary. A recess appointment under Article II, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution is an alternative method of appointing officials that allows the temporary filling of offices during periods when the Senate is not in session. It was anticipated that the Senate would be away for months at a time, so the ability to fill vacancies in important positions when the Senate is in recess and unavailable to provide advice and consent was deemed essential to maintain government function, as described by Alexander Hamilton in No. 67 of The Federalist Papers.

In modern times, the Senate is in session nearly year-round, making the recess appointment mechanism far less necessary or useful for upkeep of government function. Nonetheless, in recent times this power has also been controversially used as a political tool to temporarily install an unpopular nominee by sidestepping the Senate's role in the confirmation process;[1] the Senate has taken measures from time to time to prevent a president from making recess appointments, specifically by holding pro forma sessions. The Supreme Court affirmed that pro forma sessions are sufficient to prevent recess appointments and addressed other intricacies of the practice in NLRB v. Noel Canning (2014). Appointments made during a recess must be confirmed by the Senate by the end of the next session of Congress, or the appointment expires. In current practice, this means that a recess appointment must be approved by roughly the end of the next calendar year and thus could last for almost two years, if made early enough in the year. In situations where a recess appointment is prevented, a lower official frequently assumes the duties of the position in an acting role.

Constitutional text[edit]

Article II, Section 2, Clause 3, commonly known as the Recess Appointment Clause, provides that,

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.

History[edit]

Presidents since George Washington have made recess appointments. Washington appointed South Carolina judge John Rutledge as Chief Justice of the United States during a congressional recess in 1795. Because of Rutledge's political views and occasional mental illness, however, the Senate rejected his nomination, and Rutledge attempted suicide and resigned. Almost every president has used recess appointments to appoint judges, over 300 such judicial recess appointments before 2000, including ten Supreme Court justices.[2]

New Jersey judge William J. Brennan was appointed to the Supreme Court by President Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1956 by a recess appointment. This was done in part with an eye on the presidential campaign that year; Eisenhower was running for reelection, and his advisors thought it would be politically advantageous to place a northeastern Catholic on the court. Brennan was promptly confirmed when the Senate came back into session. Eisenhower, in a recess appointment, designated Charles W. Yost as United States Ambassador to Syria.[3] Eisenhower made two other recess appointments, Chief Justice Earl Warren and Associate Justice Potter Stewart.

According to the Congressional Research Service, President Ronald Reagan made 240 recess appointments (average 30 per year) and President George H. W. Bush made 77 recess appointments (average 19 per year). George H. W. Bush appointed Lawrence Eagleburger as Secretary of State during a recess in 1992; Eagleburger, as Deputy Secretary of State, had in effect filled that role after James Baker resigned.

President Bill Clinton made 139 recess appointments (average of 17 per year).

President George W. Bush made 171 recess appointments (average of 21 per year). During the last two years of the Bush administration, Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid sought to prevent further recess appointments. Bush promised not to make any during the August recess that year, but no agreement was reached for the two-week Thanksgiving break, in November 2007. As a result, Reid did not allow adjournments of more than three days from then until the end of the Bush presidency by holding pro forma sessions.[4][5] Prior to this, there had been speculation that James W. Holsinger would receive a recess appointment as Surgeon General of the United States.[6]

President Barack Obama made 32 recess appointments (through February 1, 2015), all to full-time positions.[1] Over what would have traditionally been the 2011–12 winter recess of the 112th Congress, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives did not assent to recess, specifically to block Richard Cordray's appointment as Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.[7] Both the House and Senate continued to hold pro forma sessions.[8]

In August 2017, nine pro forma sessions were set up to block President Donald Trump from making recess appointments. The concern was that Trump might dismiss Attorney General Jeff Sessions, and try to name his successor while Congress was in recess.[9] Pro forma sessions continued to be held until January 2019. They were held on December 31, 2018,[10] and again on January 2, 2019, the last full day of the 115th United States Congress, that lasted several minutes.

On April 15, 2020, while Congress was holding pro forma sessions due to the recess during the COVID-19 pandemic, President Trump threatened to adjourn both houses of Congress in order to make recess appointments for vacant positions such as the Federal Reserve Board of Governors and the Director of National Intelligence.[11] However, the U.S. Constitution only grants the president the authority to adjourn Congress if it is unable to agree on a date of adjournment, and both Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell indicated that they would not alter the planned date of January 3, 2021.[12]

Congressional action to prevent recess appointments[edit]

The Senate or House may seek to block potential recess appointments by not allowing the Senate to adjourn under Article 1, Section 5, Clause 4 of the Constitution, which provides that both Houses must consent to an adjournment.[13] This tactic is especially used when either House of Congress is controlled by a different party than that of the president, the Senate or House may seek to block potential recess appointments by not allowing the Senate to adjourn for more than three days, blocking a longer adjournment that would allow recess appointments to be made.[14]

In order to combat this tactic from Congress, the president can adjourn Congress under Article II section 3 of the constitution that states

"He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper; he shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers; he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the United States." [emphasis added]

According to Article II Section 2 of the Constitution, the president can appoint or fill up the vacancies that happen during a recess without the Senate's approval, but those positions will end at the end of the next legislative session unless Congress approves the appointment.[15]

"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."

Legality of intra-session appointments[edit]

According to Henry B. Hogue, of the Congressional Research Service's Government and Finance Division:[16]

Recent Presidents have made both intersession [between sessions or Congresses] and intrasession [during a recess within a session] recess appointments. Intrasession recess appointments were unusual, however, prior to the 1940s, in part because intrasession recesses were less common at that time. Intrasession recess appointments have sometimes provoked controversy in the Senate, and some academic literature also has called their legitimacy into question. Legal opinions have also varied on this issue over time.

It has been argued that as the clause was originally understood, it was expected that if the Senate was in session when an office became vacant, the president would make a standard advice-and-consent appointment at that time.[17] In Federalist No. 67, Alexander Hamilton wrote:[18]

The ordinary power of appointment is confined to the President and Senate jointly, and can therefore only be exercised during the session of the Senate; but as it would have been improper to oblige this body to be continually in session for the appointment of officers and as vacancies might happen in their recess, which it might be necessary for the public service to fill without delay. ...

Another argument maintains that recess appointments were to be made only during inter-session recesses, which during the early days of the country lasted between six and nine months, and were therefore required to prevent important offices from remaining unfilled for long periods. The view holds that the current interpretation allows appointments to be made during recesses too brief to justify bypassing the Senate.

Historically, presidents tended to make recess appointments when the Senate was adjourned for lengthy periods. Since World War II, presidents have sometimes made recess appointments when Senate opposition appeared strong in the hope that appointees might prove themselves in office and then allow opposition to dissipate. Most recently, however, as partisanship on Capitol Hill has grown,[19] recess appointments have tended to solidify opposition to the appointee.[20]

Obama's challenge[edit]

Regardless of the Senate continuing to hold pro forma sessions, on January 4, 2012, President Obama appointed Richard Cordray and others as recess appointments.[21][22][23] White House Counsel Kathryn Ruemmler asserted that the appointments were valid, because the pro forma sessions were designed to, "through form, render a constitutional power of the executive obsolete" and that the Senate was for all intents and purposes recessed.[24] Republicans in the Senate disputed the appointments, with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell stating that Obama had "arrogantly circumvented the American people" with the appointments. It was expected that there would be a legal challenge to the appointments.[25]

On January 6, 2012, the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel issued an opinion regarding recess appointments and pro forma sessions, claiming,

"The convening of periodic pro forma sessions in which no business is to be conducted does not have the legal effect of interrupting an intrasession recess otherwise long enough to qualify as a "Recess of the Senate" under the Recess Appointments Clause. In this context, the President therefore has discretion to conclude that the Senate is unavailable to perform its advise-and-consent function and to exercise his power to make recess appointments".[26][27]

Judicial challenges[edit]

However, this was widely disputed.[28][29] The first such challenge was announced in April 2012, disputing a National Labor Relations Board ruling made following the Obama appointments.[30][31]

On January 25, 2013, in the first circuit case to rule on the validity of the January 4, 2012, appointments, Chief Judge David Sentelle, writing for a unanimous three-judge panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, wrote

"an interpretation of 'the Recess' that permits the President to decide when the Senate is in recess would demolish the checks and balances inherent in the advice-and-consent requirement, giving the President free rein to appoint his desired nominees at any time he pleases, whether that time be a weekend, lunch, or even when the Senate is in session and he is merely displeased with its inaction. This cannot be the law."[32]

Also, on March 16, 2013, the Third Circuit joined the D.C. Circuit and held that the March 2010 appointment of Craig Becker to the NLRB was invalid because he was not appointed between sessions.[33]

On June 26, 2014, in a 9–0 ruling, the United States Supreme Court validated this practice of using pro forma sessions to block the president from using the recess appointment authority. Justice Stephen Breyer wrote that the Constitution allows for the Congress itself to determine its sessions and recesses, that "the Senate is in session when it says it is", and that the President does not have the unilateral right to dictate Congressional sessions and thus make recess appointments.[34] However, the decision allows the use of recess appointments during breaks within a session for vacancies that existed prior to the break. Justice Breyer also noted that the president could force a recess if he had enough congressional support:

"The Constitution also gives the President (if he has enough allies in Congress) a way to force a recess. Art. II, §3 ('[I]n Case of Disagreement between [the Houses], with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, [the President] may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper'). Moreover, the president and Senators engage with each other in many different ways [*28] and have a variety of methods of encouraging each other to accept their points of view. Regardless, the Recess Appointments Clause is not designed to overcome serious institutional friction. It simply provides a subsidiary method for appointing officials when the Senate is away during a recess."[35]

See also[edit]

References[edit]

  1. ^ a b Hogue, Henry B. (March 11, 2015). "Recess Appointments: Frequently Asked Questions" (PDF). CRS Reports. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service. Retrieved February 10, 2018.
  2. ^ Arnold, Tim (Spring 2011). "Recess Appointments". UVA Lawyer.
  3. ^ "Marine Embassy Security Guard historical archives". Msg-history.com. Retrieved December 10, 2016.
  4. ^ "Days in Session Calendars U.S. Senate – 110th Congress 2nd Session". Thomas.loc.gov. December 31, 2008. Archived from the original on May 6, 2009. Retrieved May 30, 2011.
  5. ^ "Senate Calendar – December". Democrats.senate.gov. Archived from the original on June 6, 2011. Retrieved May 30, 2011.
  6. ^ "Reid To Bush: No Recess Appointments Wanted". Cbsnews.com. November 16, 2007. Retrieved May 30, 2011.
  7. ^ "GOP Furious As Obama Recess Appoints Cordray". talkingpointsmemo.com. January 4, 2012. Retrieved December 10, 2016.
  8. ^ Mcconnell, Michael (January 10, 2012). "Democrats and Executive Overreach". The Wall Street Journal.
  9. ^ "Senate blocks Trump from making recess appointments over break". The Hill. August 3, 2017. Archived from the original on December 21, 2022.
  10. ^ Werner, Erica; Kane, Paul; Sonmez, Felicia (December 27, 2018). "Shutdown set to extend into new year after Congress punts on budget, border votes". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on December 27, 2018. Retrieved December 27, 2018.
  11. ^ Zilbermints, Regina (April 15, 2020). "Trump threatens to adjourn both chambers of Congress". The Hill. Retrieved April 19, 2020.
  12. ^ "Explainer: Does Trump have the authority to adjourn US Congress?". www.aljazeera.com. Retrieved April 19, 2020.
  13. ^ Article 1, Section 5, Clause 4: Adjournment of the Constitution says: "Neither House ... shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days".
  14. ^ "Obama's Sham Constitutionalism". Cato.org. January 5, 2012. Retrieved December 10, 2016.
  15. ^ "Article II".
  16. ^ "Recess Appointments: Frequently Asked Questions (RS21308)". senate.gov. March 11, 2015.
  17. ^ "The Original Meaning of the Recess Appointments Clause". UCLA Law Review. 52 (5): 1487–1578. June 2005. SSRN 621381.
  18. ^ "The Federalist #67". Constitution.org. Retrieved December 10, 2016.
  19. ^ Moody, James; Mucha, Peter J. (2013). "Portrait of Political Party Polarization". Network Science. 1. Cambridge University Press: 119–121. doi:10.1017/nws.2012.3. S2CID 3905434. Retrieved July 15, 2013.
  20. ^ David R. Stras; Ryan W. Scott (2007). "Navigating the New Politics of Judicial Appointments" (PDF). Northwestern University Law Review. Princeton University Press. Retrieved July 15, 2013.
  21. ^ Clarke, Dave & Matt Spetalnick (January 4, 2012). "Stymied by Congress, Obama to boldly seat nominees". Chicago Tribune. Archived from the original on January 8, 2012. Retrieved January 5, 2012.
  22. ^ Cooper, Helene & John H. Cushman, Jr. (January 4, 2012). "Defying Republicans, Obama to Name Cordray as Consumer Agency Chief". The New York Times. Retrieved January 5, 2012.
  23. ^ Cooper, Helene; Steinhauer, Jennifer (January 4, 2012). "Bucking Senate, Obama Appoints Consumer Chief". The New York Times. Retrieved January 5, 2012.
  24. ^ Savage, Charlie (January 4, 2012). "Obama Tempts Fight Over Recess Appointments". Thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com. Retrieved December 10, 2016.
  25. ^ "Analysis: Obama consumer chief decision under a legal cloud". Reuters.com. January 5, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2016 – via Reuters.
  26. ^ "OLC: Opinions by Date and Title". Archived from the original on January 18, 2012. Retrieved February 2, 2012.
  27. ^ "Lawfulness of Recess Appointments During a Recess of the Senate Notwithstanding Periodic Pro Forma Sessions" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on January 18, 2012. Retrieved February 2, 2012.
  28. ^ "The Constitution Is Clear On Recess Appointments - Ricochet". Ricochet.com. January 5, 2012. Retrieved December 10, 2016.
  29. ^ The Corner The one and only. (January 5, 2012). "Richard Cordray & the Use and Abuse of Executive Power". National Review. Retrieved December 10, 2016.
  30. ^ O'Keefe, Ed (April 18, 2012). "Senate GOP joining legal action against Obama recess appointments". The Washington Post.
  31. ^ "GOP plans brief opposing Obama's labor board appointments". Archived from the original on May 9, 2012. Retrieved April 17, 2012.
  32. ^ "Noel Canning, A Division of the Noel Corporation, Petitioner v. National Labor Relations Board, Respondent" (PDF). Sblog.s3.amazonaws.com. Retrieved December 10, 2016.
  33. ^ "Re: Third Circuit Ruling Against Presidential Recess-Appointment Authority". CNationalreview.com. May 17, 2013. Retrieved December 10, 2016.
  34. ^ "Senate 9, President 0". The Wall Street Journal. June 26, 2014. Retrieved September 13, 2021.
  35. ^ "Bloomberg Law - Document – NLRB v. Noel Canning, 134 S. Ct. 2550, 189 L. Ed. 2d 538, 199 LRRM 3685, 82 U.S.L.W. 4599 (2014), Court Opinionwebsite2.bloomberglaw.com". Retrieved December 10, 2016.

Further reading[edit]