Menus Subscribe Search

The Law Won

dc-capitol

Washington, D.C. (Photo: Orhan Cam/Shutterstock)

This Time, Scalia Was Right

• July 22, 2014 • 9:32 AM

Washington, D.C. (Photo: Orhan Cam/Shutterstock)

President Obama’s recess appointments were wrong and, worse, dangerous.

Justice Antonin Scalia and I don’t agree on much. My Supreme Court idols are Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor. I think women are people and corporations are not, that gun control is constitutional and discrimination is not. While I worry about the rights of minorities in America, Scalia crafts opinions stacking the deck for the majority. And, of course, I’m gay, a state of being Scalia likens to “bigamy, adultery, adult incest, bestiality, and obscenity.” We’re both Catholic, but I’m sure he wishes I weren’t.

Even when Scalia’s right, it’s hard to agree, so abrasive is his rhetoric and reaching his reasoning. Yet, he’s right about a few things. Scalia was right to dissent in Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl last term, a case in which the majority steamrolled a statute protecting Native American families from being separated unjustly, and he was right this term about recess appointments. What Congress did to block Obama from appointing officials was bad, and what Obama did to get around Congress was worse, legally and politically. But what the Supreme Court did to avoid dinging Obama for his gutsy maneuver was outright nutty

THE CONSTITUTION SAYS THE president can only appoint most senior federal officials with the “advice and consent of the Senate.” The only exception comes from the Recess Appointments Clause. That Clause tells us the president can “fill all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate”—but only by “granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session.” The purpose of the Clause was to let presidents appoint “acting” officials to fill unexpected vacancies that occurred during a recess so that an agency’s operations wouldn’t be interrupted.

Obama isn’t the only president to try to use recess appointments as a backdoor for nominations. But he is the first president to try to redefine “recess” and “session” on the Senate’s behalf.

When the Senate blocked Obama’s nominations in 2011, the appointment process came to a standstill—to the detriment of the agencies and the people they serve. Among other things, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) couldn’t even reach quora, essentially paralyzing the agency.

Intent on continuing to frustrate Obama’s attempts to appoint officials, the Senate held pro forma sessions every three days during the January recess. They had no intention of conducting business, senators said, but they’d been refusing to confirm Obama nominees while in regular session, and they’d be damned if they were going to let him sneak in recess appointments while they were recessed.

Instead of continuing to grapple with the Senate, Obama decided to ignore the Senate’s pro forma sessions. The administration reasoned that if senators weren’t conducting business, it could be argued that they weren’t actually in session. Obama’s tricky maneuver landed administration officials in court after a canning company affected by the recess-appointed NLRB officials filed suit.

IN THE MOST GENERAL sense, the Recess Appointments Clause was meant to keep the trains running on time—and that’s how Obama justified the move. But that’s the extent of the match between the text’s purpose and Obama’s use of the Clause. The Clause wasn’t meant to let the president sidestep Congress. Rather, it was a fallback for the executive branch to be used only when Congress truly wasn’t available to confirm nominees, when it took days to reach members of the Senate who returned home during the recess and days more for senators to return to Washington.

Additional restrictions since placed on this power narrow the pool of potential recess-appointees—for example, they must have been at the agency for several months before the recess appointment and hold a senior-level title. But these limits have hardly deterred presidents from abusing the Recess Appointments Clause to get around an obstinate Senate.

Obama isn’t the only president to try to use recess appointments as a backdoor for nominations. (He actually lags predecessors in making such appointments, according to Pew.) Neither was the 2012 Senate the first to try to block that effort by refusing to recess. It was Senate Democrats who inaugurated the dubious practice of holding pro forma sessions to block presidential recess appointments. At the time, in 2007, they were hell-bent on keeping President George W. Bush from making appointments over the Thanksgiving break.

But Obama is the first president to try to redefine “recess” and “session” on the Senate’s behalf. What makes the gambit particularly galling is that it was not just legally unsound but politically unnecessary. Obama should have been strong-arming Congress, not making an end-run around them. The former was legal, and politically feasible, but the latter risked a Supreme Court decision restricting the power of the presidency potentially permanently.

When Obama entered office in 2009, there were 57 Democrats in the Senate and just 41 Republicans, with two Independents. Even after the rocky mid-term elections, he had 51 Democratic senators and two liberal-leaning Independents to 47 Republicans.

If Obama and his allies in the Senate couldn’t manage to secure confirmations via traditional Hill bargaining (or House of Cards-style tactics), the party’s senators should have done in 2011 what they eventually did in 2013 with 52 votes: change the filibuster to let the Senate confirm nominees with a simple majority. Democrats had the votes. Unpopular as the filibuster rule change was in political and academic corners, its constitutionality is less suspect than that of Obama’s attempt to declare a recess over the Senate’s objections.

An intriguing alternative, all the more obvious in the wake of the Court’s ruling, would have been for a senator—or perhaps the vice president, presiding over the Senate—to note the lack of quorum. The Court rejected Obama’s argument that the Senate wasn’t really in session because it wasn’t conducting business in part by emphasizing that “despite its resolution that it would conduct no business, the Senate retained the power to conduct business.” But the Senate’s ability to conduct business during a low-attendance pro forma session would expire as soon as any senator questioned the lack of a quorum. As the majority notes, “Senate rules presume that a quorum is present unless a present Senator questions it.” Note that the wording of the opinion leaves this option open to administration officials.

The Justices ruled against Obama in the sense that they ruled the Senate only decides when the Senate is in session. But they went easy on him.

Noting a lack of quorum has the added benefit of giving Obama allies another means of pressuring senators: Because the senators owe a duty of attendance during even pro forma sessions, the Sergeant at Arms can also compel their attendance. “It would be cool as hell,” a friend noted wryly, for the Sergeant at Arms to “go round up Ted Cruz and Mitch McConnell and put them on airplanes.”

THE JUSTICES RULED AGAINST Obama in the sense that they ruled the Senate only decides when the Senate is in session. But they went easy on him. Scalia, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts as well as Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, concurred in the judgment—that the recess appointments are invalid—but would have gone much further to prevent future abuses of the Recess Appointments Clause. The conservative quartet argued that “the majority sweeps away the key textual limitations on the recess-appointment power.”

To support their conclusion, the five more liberal Justices resorted to somewhat counterfactual reasoning. Their opinion claims, “We think it most consistent with our constitutional structure to presume that the Framers would have allowed intra-session recess appointments where there was a long history of such practice.” Scalia & Co. argue simply, compellingly, and correctly that the Framers never meant to allow the practice at all, negating any need to contemplate how they’d feel about the practice once established.

The administration took an unnecessary risk. It’s hard to overstate the stakes: If the Supreme Court had followed Scalia’s lead or taken the same path as the court below, totally condemning Obama’s maneuver, this president’s gamble on recess appointments would have tarnished his legacy, and permanently restricted the U.S. presidency. The Justices saved Obama, but at great cost to their integrity: They carved out this slap-on-the-wrist compromise only by inventing a new, moderately permissive rule for recess appointments with little basis in history and no textual support.

Rebecca Buckwalter-Poza
Rebecca Buckwalter-Poza attended Harvard College and Yale Law School. She has written on law and politics for the Nation, the Atlantic, Politico, the Daily Beast, and CNN, and co-authored James Carville’s 40 More Years. Follow her on Twitter @rpbp.

More From Rebecca Buckwalter-Poza

A weekly roundup of the best of Pacific Standard and PSmag.com, delivered straight to your inbox.

Recent Posts

September 17 • 4:00 PM

Why Gun Control Groups Have Moved Away From an Assault Weapons Ban

A decade after the ban expired, gun control groups say that focusing on other policies will save more American lives.


September 17 • 2:00 PM

Can You Make Two People Like Each Other Just By Telling Them That They Should?

OKCupid manipulates user data in an attempt to find out.


September 17 • 12:00 PM

Understanding ISIL Messaging Through Behavioral Science

By generating propaganda that taps into individuals’ emotional and cognitive states, ISIL is better able motivate people to join their jihad.


September 17 • 10:00 AM

Pulling Punches: Why Sports Leagues Treat Most Offenders With Leniency

There’s a psychological explanation for the weak punishment given to Ray Rice before a video surfaced that made a re-evaluation unavoidable.


September 17 • 9:44 AM

No Innovation Without Migration: Portlandia Is Dying

Build an emerald city. Attract the best and brightest with glorious amenities. They will come and do nothing.



September 17 • 8:00 AM

Why Don’t We Have Pay Toilets in America?

Forty years ago, thanks to an organization founded by four high school friends, human rights beat out the free market—and now we can all pee for free.


September 17 • 6:32 AM

Do Conspiracy Theorists Feed on Unsuspecting Internet Trolls?

Not literally, but debunkers and satirists do fuel conspiracy theorists’ appetites.


September 17 • 6:00 AM

The Grateful Dig: An Archaeologist Excavates a Tie-Dyed Modern Stereotype

What California’s senior state archaeologist discovered in the ruins of a hippie commune.


September 17 • 4:00 AM

The Strong Symbolic Power of Emptying Pockets

Researchers find the symbolic act of emptying a receptacle can impact our behavior, and not for the better.


September 16 • 4:00 PM

Why Is LiveJournal Helping Russia Block a Prominent Critic of Vladimir Putin?

The U.S. blogging company is showing an error message to users inside Russia who try to read the blog of Alexei Navalny, a prominent politician and critic of the Russian government.


September 16 • 2:00 PM

Man Up, Ladies! … But Not Too Much

Too often, women are asked to display masculine traits in order to be successful in the workplace.



September 16 • 12:00 PM

What Makes You So Smart, Brilliant 12-Year-Old?

Charles Wang is going to rule the world.


September 16 • 10:09 AM

No Innovation Without Migration: The Harlem Renaissance

The Harlem Renaissance wasn’t a place, but an era of migration. It would have happened even without New York City.


September 16 • 10:00 AM

A Law Professor Walks Into a Creative Writing Workshop

One academic makes the case for learning how to write.



September 16 • 7:23 AM

Does Not Checking Your Buddy’s Facebook Updates Make You a Bad Friend?

An etiquette expert, a social scientist, and an old pal of mine ponder the ever-shifting rules of friendship.



September 16 • 6:12 AM

3-D Movies Aren’t That Special

Psychologists find that 3-D doesn’t have any extra emotional impact.


September 16 • 6:00 AM

What Color Is Your Pygmy Goat?

The fierce battle over genetic purity, writ small. Very small.



September 15 • 4:00 PM

The Average Prisoner Is Visited Only Twice While Incarcerated

And black prisoners receive even fewer visitors.


September 15 • 2:00 PM

Gambling With America’s Health

The public health costs of legal gambling.


September 15 • 12:23 PM

The Scent of a Conservative

We are attracted to the body odor of others with similar political beliefs, according to new research.


Follow us


Do Conspiracy Theorists Feed on Unsuspecting Internet Trolls?

Not literally, but debunkers and satirists do fuel conspiracy theorists' appetites.

3-D Movies Aren’t That Special

Psychologists find that 3-D doesn't have any extra emotional impact.

To Protect Against Meltdowns, Banks Must Map Financial Interconnections

A new model suggests looking beyond balance sheets, studying the network of investment as well.

Big Government, Happy Citizens?

You may like to talk about how much happier you'd be if the government didn't interfere with your life, but that's not what the research shows.

Give Yourself a Present for the Future

Psychologists discover that we underestimate the value of looking back.

The Big One

One in three drivers in Brooklyn's Park Slope—at certain times of day—is just looking for parking. The same goes for drivers in Manhattan's SoHo. September/October 2014 new-big-one-3

Copyright © 2014 by Pacific Standard and The Miller-McCune Center for Research, Media, and Public Policy. All Rights Reserved.