jeudi 30 janvier 2014

Noel Canning v. NLRB

As may have been discussed previously, President Obama claimed the power in 2012 to appoint several people to positions in the National Labor Relations Board using his recess appointment power. He did this despite the fact the Senate was still technically in session, holding pro forma sessions every three days.



The NLRB, with the recess-appointed members, proceeded to make rulings on questions before them. One such ruling adversely affected Noel Canning, a contract bottling and canning company, which subsequently filed suit in federal court, alleging the unfavorable ruling was illegitimately issued because the board lacked a quorum because the recess appointments were unconstitutional. The case has made its way to the US Supreme Court (more information here).



The lower court decided in favor of Noel Canning (and not even just because the Senate was holding its pro forma sessions), ruling that where the recess appointment clause refers to "the recess of the Senate" it means only that recess which occurs between the first and second sessions of a Congress. It went even further and also ruled the vacancy being filled must have been created during that same recess. Oral arguments for the case took place at the Supreme Court on 13 January.



Probably not surprising to most here, I am solidly rooting for the court to rule in favor of Noel Canning. My reasoning will come out in later posts. What are your thoughts?





via JREF Forum http://ift.tt/1fig9rL

Aucun commentaire:

Enregistrer un commentaire