Opinion
Get Opinion in your inbox -- sign up for our weekly newsletter
Opinion Editorial
Editorial

A reasonable ruling on presidential recess appointments

Supreme Court curbs on recess appointments is good news for the presidency, and for the country
Recess appointments should be exceptional, but they shouldn't be impossible

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously on Thursday that President Obama acted illegally in 2012 when he installed three members on the National Labor Relations Board without confirmation by the Senate. Even at the time, those appointments — made during a period in which the Senate was convening every three days for "pro forma" sessions at which no serious business was transacted — were seen as an abuse of the president's constitutional power "to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate."

Nevertheless, Obama and his successors should welcome this decision because it could have been so much worse. The justices could have endorsed the holding of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that presidents may unilaterally appoint officials only between "enumerated sessions" of Congress, a hiatus that occurs only once a year. Or they could have backed the appeals court's holding that recess appointments could be made only for vacancies that opened up during that recess.

Writing for the majority, Justice Stephen G. Breyer rightly rejected the appeals court's extreme approach. Concluding that the Constitution should be read in light of "the compromises and working arrangements that the elected branches of government themselves have reached," Breyer noted that the Senate frequently has declared "intra-session" recesses and that presidents have often made temporary appointments during those gaps, including appointments to fill vacancies that arose earlier. Breyer's bottom line was that the president may exercise his recess appointment authority during a break in Senate business of "substantial length" (usually 10 days or more) and that the vacancy need not have occurred during the recess.

That more pragmatic interpretation is good news for the presidency, but it's also beneficial for the country.

Admittedly, the recess appointment power is an artifact of an era when travel to Washington was time-consuming and senators often were away from the capital for long periods of time. But even in an era of air travel and instant communication, there will be times when a recess appointment is justified, either because of a sudden vacancy in a crucial office or because the Senate won't act on a nomination expeditiously. (The latter justification has lost much of its force with the decision by Senate Democrats last year to abolish the filibuster for almost all nominations.)

Recess appointments should be exceptional, but they shouldn't be impossible. It's good that a majority of the justices didn't allow their displeasure with Obama's overreaching to obscure that fact.

Copyright © 2015, Los Angeles Times
Related Content
  • Supreme Court sharply limits presidential power on recess appointments

    Supreme Court sharply limits presidential power on recess appointments

    The Supreme Court on Thursday greatly limited the ability of President Obama and future presidents to use recess appointments to circumvent congressional opposition to their judicial and executive nominees, ruling unanimously that Obama exceeded his power under the Constitution when he filled three...

  • Opinion: Anthony Kennedy and the Supremes

    Opinion: Anthony Kennedy and the Supremes

    Good morning. I’m Matthew Fleischer, Web editor of the Times’ Opinion section, filling in for Paul Thornton. It’s the Fourth of July. Fire up the barbecues and have a look back at the week in Opinion. Subscribe to the newsletter Shock waves from the Supreme Court's recent run of mega-decisions...

  • #EmergingUS: Diversity is our destiny, but how do we talk about it?

    #EmergingUS: Diversity is our destiny, but how do we talk about it?

    As we celebrate our country's birthday, let us also acknowledge that the country that declared independence in 1776 does not look like the country we live in today.

  • A welcome focus on job creation by L.A. officials -- but can they deliver?

    A welcome focus on job creation by L.A. officials -- but can they deliver?

    Ten months ago, when Mayor Eric Garcetti proposed raising the city's minimum wage to lift people out of poverty, The Times, along with business groups and others, called on him to develop a comprehensive job creation strategy and to focus on attracting the kinds of $20- and $30-an-hour jobs Los...

  • Gardena, release the police video

    Gardena, release the police video

    As more police agencies put video recorders in their patrol cars and issue body cameras to their officers, policymakers must grapple with how and when to release the recordings to the public. These can be difficult questions, but the legal fight over the recordings of a shooting of two unarmed...

  • There's already a law for that

    There's already a law for that

    American criminal codes are a mess, and every year they become more convoluted, more likely to foster injustice. States across the nation are trying to clean up the muddle, but prosecutors often threaten those efforts.

  • Deprogamming the Southern California lawn

    Deprogamming the Southern California lawn

    My first lawn in Southern California was at a Burbank rental where the landlord asked my husband and me to keep the yard watered. A dewy-eyed newbie to this end of the state, I thought, “Not a problem.” The landlord paid for the water and it was mid-1980s cheap.

  • The tide finally turns on L.A. County beach access

    The tide finally turns on L.A. County beach access

    In the ongoing battle between the California Coastal Commission and property owners over public access to the beach, one of the lengthiest skirmishes has been the one the state agency waged with Malibu resident Lisette Ackerberg. But after more than a decade of legal wrangling in and out of court,...

Comments
Loading