NLRB to seek top court review of recess appointments ruling

WASHINGTON Tue Mar 12, 2013 6:10pm EDT

Police officers stand on the front steps on the first day of legal arguments over the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act at the Supreme Court in Washington March 26, 2012. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst

Police officers stand on the front steps on the first day of legal arguments over the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act at the Supreme Court in Washington March 26, 2012.

Credit: Reuters/Jonathan Ernst

Related Topics

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The National Labor Relations Board said on Tuesday it would seek Supreme Court review of an appeals court decision that raised questions about the authority of the president to make appointments without Senate approval.

In a January 25 ruling, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said that three appointments Obama made to the NLRB last year were invalid.

The court said the president did not have the authority to make these recess appointments because the Senate was not technically in recess at the time. The Constitution allows the president to make appointments when the Senate is in recess, but the appointment expires with the end of the congressional session.

The ruling meant that the NLRB does not have the required quorum to make decisions, casting doubt on its actions and rulings since the appointments were made in January 2012.

In a brief statement issued on Tuesday the board said it would seek Supreme Court review rather than asking the appeals court to rehear the case.

The board's opening brief to the Supreme Court is due on April 25.

(Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; Editing by Howard Goller)

FILED UNDER:
We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (1)
OneOfTheSheep wrote:
I have had an attorney look me in the eye and explain how “no one knows what a law passed by a legislative body means until the question is posed to a judge in a court of competent jurisdiction and a ruling is then issued.”

So we have “Catch 22″. “Ignorance of the law is no excuse” for any transgression, but a law that has yet to be “defined” per the above is unreliable as guidance for actions of an individual’s or agency.

We can all be thankful that those of us who ask for and get a jury are unlikely to be “hung” on such a nail. But bookies will likely have odds either way on what the “Supremes” will decide.

Mar 12, 2013 11:08pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.