blogged about the D.C. Circuit's ruling in Noel Canning v. NLRB (pdf) that
President Obama's three 2012 recess appointments to the
National Labor Relations Board are unconstitutional. The
consequence of that decision was to invalidate the NLRB decision
against Noel Canning for lack of a quorum of NLRB members. The
decision also cast a dark cloud over many other NLRB decisions, as
well as the recess appointment of Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau head Richard Cordray.
As we mentioned,
the Solicitor General already filed a
petition for certiorari in Noel Canning. The National
Chamber Litigation Center has just filed a brief in
response—the first time that Chamber lawyers have ever
directly represented a member company before the Supreme
The Chamber's brief (pdf) agrees that the D.C.
Circuit's decision is worthy of Supreme Court review, and
explains why the D.C. Circuit's decision should be upheld.
Under the current schedule, the Supreme Court will consider the
petition during the June 20, 2013 conference and possibly act on it
in the orders list on June 24. If the Solicitor General waives the
right to file a reply brief, however, the petition could be
resolved a week earlier, on June 17.
In related news, in another case, the Third Circuit agreed with
the D.C. Circuit's conclusion that the Constitution permits
recess appointments only during "intersession
breaks"—that is, during periods between sessions of the
Senate. As with the 2012 recess appointments at issue in Noel
Canning, the 2010 recess appointment at issue in the Third
Circuit case, NLRB v. New Vista Nursing &
Rehabilitation (pdf), was made during a break in the
middle of a session. Judge Smith wrote the decision, which Judge
Van Antwerpen joined. Judge Greenaway dissented. Presumably, the
Solicitor General will file a petition for certiorari in New
Vista asking that the case be held pending the outcome of
Mayer Brown is a global legal services provider
comprising legal practices that are separate entities (the
"Mayer Brown Practices"). The Mayer Brown Practices are:
Mayer Brown LLP and Mayer Brown Europe – Brussels LLP, both
limited liability partnerships established in Illinois USA; Mayer
Brown International LLP, a limited liability partnership
incorporated in England and Wales (authorized and regulated by the
Solicitors Regulation Authority and registered in England and Wales
number OC 303359); Mayer Brown, a SELAS established in France;
Mayer Brown JSM, a Hong Kong partnership and its associated
entities in Asia; and Tauil & Chequer Advogados, a Brazilian
law partnership with which Mayer Brown is associated. "Mayer
Brown" and the Mayer Brown logo are the trademarks of the
Mayer Brown Practices in their respective
Mayer Brown article provides information and comments on legal
issues and developments of interest. The foregoing is not a
comprehensive treatment of the subject matter covered and is not
intended to provide legal advice. Readers should seek specific
legal advice before taking any action with respect to the matters
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.
After a year of public-private collaboration and considerable anticipation, the National Institute for Standards and Technology’s (NIST) cybersecurity framework for critical infrastructure has arrived.
A trial court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction over a defendant is limited by the Constitution’s Due Process Clause. Today, in Walden v. Fiore, No. 12-574, the U.S. Supreme Court held that "[a] forum State’s exercise of jurisdiction over an out-of-state intentional tortfeasor must be based on intentional conduct by the defendant that creates the necessary contacts with the forum."
In Murray v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California denied a motion for class certification that was practically identical to a motion brought in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois that was initially granted, but subsequently reversed by the Seventh Circuit.