1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Supreme Court Unanimously Agrees Not to Interpret Senate Pro Forma Sessions

Discussion in 'General Politics' started by LPH, Jun 26, 2014.

  1. LPH

    LPH Flight Director Flight Instructor

    Likes Received:

    Supreme Court Unanimously Agrees Not to Interpret Senate Pro Forma Sessions

    Between January 3rd and 6th 2012, President Obama used the Recess Appointments Clause to appoint three members to The National Labor Review Board (NLR8). The executive branch interpreted that the Senate had been in pro forma sessions since December 17, 2011 but was not conducting business and therefore was a sham and was in recess. Noel Canning, a Pepsi-Cola distributor, asked a D.C. Circuit court to set aside an order of the NLRB arguing the board lacked a quorum because the three appointees were unconstitutional. The Supreme Court heard the argument on January 13, 2014.

    The Supreme Court decided June 26, 2014 not to interpret the Senate pro forma sessions as argued by the executive branch. "The Court will not, as the Solicitor General urges, engage in an in-depth factual appraisal of what the Senate actually did during its pro forma session in order to determine whether it was in recess or in session for purposes of the Recess Appointments Clause."

    Instead, the Supreme Court unanimously narrowed the interpretation of recess, suggesting at least 10 days are necessary for the Senate to not transact business.
  2. Gracie

    Gracie Dogs Times Writer

    Likes Received:
    This is a strange opinion because isn't "the spirit of the law" usually taken into account? The spirit of the pro forma sessions were obvious when nothing was being done in the upper and lower chambers.

    Headlines regarding the intent were common. Maybe a Senator or member of the House of Representatives never went on record.


Share This Page