United States: Noel Canning v NLRB: D.C. Circuit Holds NLRB Recess Appointments Unconstitutional

Last Updated: February 6 2013
Article by Zachary D. Fasman and Todd C. Duffield

On January 25, 2013, the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that President Obama's appointment of three individuals to the NLRB a year earlier exceeded his powers under the Constitution. The case interprets the Recess appointments clause literally, and very narrowly, and concludes that the agency lacks a quorum and is unable to conduct business. Indeed, the decision's interpretation of the Recess appointments clause is narrow enough to call into question most if not all prior recess appointments, and could invalidate not merely decisions involving the most recent recess appointees but prior rulings issued by the NLRB when other recess appointees formed the Board's three person quorum. The decision surely will be appealed to the Supreme Court by the Administration, but unless overturned, is of enormous significance to the practice of labor law.


President Obama appointed three individuals to the NLRB - Sharon Block, Richard Griffin, and Terence Flynn - on January 4, 2012, claiming the power to make such appointments without the "advice and consent" of the Senate under the Constitution's Recess appointments clause, Article II, Section 2, which reads:

The President shall have the 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.

At the time these appointments were made, the Senate had just begun its new legislative session but was holding pro forma sessions, whereby one Senator would convene the Senate every three days but the body would conduct no business.1 The effect of these pro forma sessions, a practice that originated towards the end of the second term of President George W. Bush, was to prevent the President from making recess appointments by ensuring that the Senate was never in recess. President Bush chose not to challenge the practice and did not make recess appointments at the end of his second term, resulting in the NLRB shrinking to two members. The Supreme Court, in New Process Steel, L.P. v NLRB, 130 S. Ct. 2635 (2010), held that the NLRB must have three members to constitute a quorum, and has no power to act with only two members. President Obama, seeking to avoid that result, made the recess appointments after the new Congress convened on January 3, 2012, claiming that the Senate really was not in session when it convened on a pro forma basis conducting no business.

The Ruling

The D.C. Circuit read the Recess appointments clause literally, and based its ruling upon historical practice elucidating what the Framers intended. It came to two conclusions based upon the language of the clause interpreted in light of understandings at the time the Constitution was drafted and ratified.

1. The Circuit concluded that the term "the Recess of the Senate" was intended to mean the period between legislative sessions only, and not whenever the Senate was in session but temporarily in recess. The Circuit noted that when the Constitution was drafted, the Senate's legislative sessions were relatively brief and the recess between sessions far longer than today. Given the means of transportation in colonial days, Senators could not easily return to Washington to act on a Presidential appointment. The recess appointment power accordingly was designed, according to the Circuit, to address appointments only during the period between legislative sessions - "the Recess" - as opposed to periods when the Senate was in session but in a temporary hiatus. Read in this fashion, recess appointments are permissible only between sessions of Congress - referred to as an intersession recess - as opposed to when the Senate is in session but on a temporary break - referred to as an intrasession recess. Today, because Congress remains in session virtually all year, an intersession recess tends to be very brief, usually lasting only a week or two. Virtually all prior recess appointments have been intrasession appointments, which the Circuit would find unconstitutional.

2. Building on that reasoning, the Circuit held that the phrase "vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate" means exactly what it says, and allows the President to make appointments without the advice and consent of the Senate only where a vacancy "happens" during an intersession recess. Because modern intersession recesses are so short, very few vacancies arise during this period. Virtually all prior recess appointments to the NLRB - and to all other administrative agencies - filled vacancies that originally arose when the Senate was in session. According to the D.C. Circuit, all such appointments are constitutionally infirm.2

Interestingly, this literal and historical interpretation of the Recess appointments clause was not the focus of the arguments to the Circuit, as Noel Canning and its supporters principally argued that recess appointments were valid only where the Senate was in recess for more than three days, confirming a modern practice, and that President Obama had no authority to decide when the Senate was in recess or not. On the latter point, the Circuit held that "[a]n 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.... That cannot be the law." Noel Canning's brief notes that the literal and historical interpretation of the Recess appointments clause was accepted through the presidency of Andrew Johnson, after which various more executive-friendly interpretations came to be accepted. The D.C. Circuit's decision refuses to follow and conflicts with a contrary ruling by the Eleventh Circuit, Evans v Stephens, 387 F. 3d 1220 (11th Cir. 2004), cert. denied, 544 U.S. 942 (2005). This conflict between the circuits, as well as the vital significance of the issue, argues for immediate Supreme Court review.

The Significance of the Ruling

The decision has broad impact for several reasons.

  • First, it directly calls into question every NLRB decision since January 4, 2012, many of which are controversial. Only one member of the NLRB - Chairman Mark Pearce - has been confirmed by the Senate, the other two Board members (Block and Griffin) have been serving invalidated recess appointments.3 Every decision made by the NLRB since January 2012 therefore was made by an agency with only one properly appointed member, and is invalid under New Process Steel. Any decision that has been appealed thus is subject to invalidation under the Noel Canning rationale.
  • Second, any decision issued by the NLRB until it has a proper quorum will be invalid ab initio. A party who has a case currently pending before the NLRB thus should raise the quorum issue before the NLRB issues a decision. Section 10(e) of the NLRA, 29 U.S.C. § 160(e), provides that "[n]o exception that has not been urged before the Board ... shall be considered" by a reviewing court, with several exceptions. The D.C. Circuit found that the quorum issue - which had not been urged by Noel Canning before the Board - fell within the "extraordinary circumstances" exception because it raised a question as to the NLRB's jurisdiction. Another circuit court may find differently.
  • Third, by statute, every NLRB decision may be appealed to the D.C. Circuit, in addition to other appellate courts. The D.C. Circuit decision thus holds utmost significance for the NLRB, as all agency decisions may end up in that court, resulting in the invalidation of all NLRB rulings in the absence of a quorum. It is highly likely that all parties adversely affected by an NLRB ruling will ensure that the case is appealed to the D.C. Circuit to take advantage of the Noel Canning precedent.
  • Fourth, Noel Canning calls into question not only the Board's 2012 decisions, but prior decisions as well in circumstances where the agency lacked a three person quorum due to an improper recess appointee. Consider, for example, the highly criticized NLRB ruling in D.R. Horton, 357 NLRB No. 184 (2012), which issued on January 3, 2012, prior to President Obama's three recess appointments the next day. Chairman Pearce and Member Becker signed the controversial ruling, which concluded that class action waivers in arbitration programs that were a mandatory term and condition of employment violated the NLRA. While the agency at the time had three members (former Member Brian Hayes did not participate in the Horton ruling), Member Becker was serving an intrasession recess appointment which did not conform to the Noel Canning requirements. Horton is on appeal to the Fifth Circuit, and, if this issue has been properly preserved, it is entirely possible that Horton, as well as all other decisions where a recess appointee such as Member Becker formed the Board's three member quorum, will be found invalid.
  • Fifth, although the General Counsel and Regional Offices will continue to process representation petitions, investigate unfair labor practice charges, issue complaints and conduct hearings, the D.C. Circuit's decision in Noel Canning significantly limits the NLRB's ability to initiate litigation in furtherance of these administrative functions. For example, the following actions by the NLRB require the authority of a quorum: prosecution of injunction proceedings under Section 10(j), 10(e) and 10(f); contempt proceedings pertaining to the enforcement of or compliance with an order or a subpoena; and appeals to the Supreme Court. The NLRB in the past delegated its litigation authority to the General Counsel or Regional Offices when the NLRB anticipated it would lose its quorum, as it did prior to the controversy adjudicated in New Process Steel. It does not appear, however, that the NLRB did so prior to Chairman Wilma Liebman's term expiring on August 27, 2011 - the last time the NLRB had a proper quorum under the Noel Canning precedent.

Chairman Mark Pearce issued a statement last week that, despite the decision in Noel Canning, the NLRB would continue to operate "and will continue to perform our statutory duties and issue decisions." To the extent any of those duties requires a proper quorum, they are certain to be challenged from those adversely affected under the precedent established in New Process Steel and Noel Canning.


1. The Democratic Senate was forced to continue its sessions because the Republican House of Representatives would not agree to an adjournment. Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution prevents either chamber from adjourning for more than three days without the consent of the other chamber.

2 Judge Griffith of the D.C. Circuit concurred with the majority's opinion, but stated that he would not have reached the issue of when the vacancy occurs given the court's dispositive ruling on the prior point.

3 Terence Flynn resigned his seat in late May, 2012.

The content of this article does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied on in that way. Specific advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of www.mondaq.com

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


From time to time Mondaq may send you emails promoting Mondaq services including new services. You may opt out of receiving such emails by clicking below.

*** If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of services offered by Mondaq you may opt out by clicking here .


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.