With NLRB Ruling, Cordray's Recess Appointment Called into Question

Article excerpt

Byline: Kate Berry

Richard Cordray's recess appointment as head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau a year ago is being called into question after an appeals court ruling Friday invalidated President Obama's three recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that Obama did not have the authority on Jan. 4, 2012 when he filled three recess appointments to the NLRB. On that same day last year, Obama appointed Cordray to the CFPB, even though the Senate was still in what is called a "pro forma" session.

Senate Republicans have fiercely opposed Cordray's appointment and on Friday Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said in a statement that the appeals court decision "now casts serious doubt on whether the President's 'recess' appointment of Richard Cordray to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau... is constitutional."

At the time of the recess appointments, the Senate was away for the holidays on a 20-day recess and the White House called the pro forma sessions, during which the Senate meets roughly every three days for only a few minutes, a gimmick designed to prevent President Obama from exercising his constitutional authority.

The Justice Department issued a legal opinion at the time supporting the decision but acknowledged that it was likely to be challenged.

The NLRB suit was brought by Noel Canning, a Yakima, Wash., soft drink distributor that challenged an NLRB's decision that it had to enter into a collective bargaining agreement with a labor union

McConnell, 41 Senators and Miguel Estrada, a former assistant solicitor general, had filed an amicus brief last year in the case, challenging the constitutionality of the NLRB appointments. There is a separate case specifically challenging Cordray's appointment.

White House spokesman Jay Carney called the appeals court decision "novel and unprecedented," and said it contradicted more than 280 intra-session recess appointments made by both Republicans and Democrats since 1887. (The Obama administration is expected to appeal Friday's decision to the Supreme Court.)

"We strongly disagree with the decision... which contradicts 150 years of precedent," Carney said. He added, however, that "the decision had to do with one case, in one court that applies to one company. It doesn't apply to Richard Cordray."

The White House said there has been enormous frustration at the way nominations have been handled because Senate Republicans have tried to thwart the confirmation process by refusing to allow up or down votes, Carney said. He added that Cordray enjoys "broad support."

Estrada said that because Cordray was appointed at the same time as these NLRB board members, and during the same recess, "anyone challenging that appointment would only need to file suit in D.C. to have the appointment invalidated."

The appeals court ruling itself stated that: "Allowing the President to define the scope of his own appointments power would eviscerate the Constitution's separation of powers. …