Recess appointment: Difference between revisions

Recess appointment (view source)

Revision as of 23:02, 21 December 2024

8 bytes removed , 21 December 2024

m

Text replacement - "The Wall Street Journal" to "The Wall Street Journal"

CargoAdmin, Bureaucrats, Moderators (CommentStreams), fileuploaders, Interface administrators, newuser, Push subscription managers, Suppressors, Administrators

14,662

edits

@@ Line 25: / Line 25: @@
 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=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>
+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>{{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.
@@ Line 66: / Line 66: @@
 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>
-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 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>
 ==See also==