Court finds appointments unconstitutional

Sweeping ruling, which targets NLRB, undermines legitimacy of Cordray's nod to lead consumer financial agency.

, The National Law Journal


A federal appeals court in Washington has declared unconstitutional President Barack Obama's recess appointments to a labor board in a sweeping decision that curtailed executive power and undermined the legitimacy of a high-profile, controversial appointment to the administration's consumer financial protection agency.

This content has been archived. It is available exclusively through our partner LexisNexis®.

To view this content, please continue to LexisAdvance®.

Continue to LexisAdvance®

Not a LexisAdvance® Subscriber? Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via LexisAdvance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at

What's being said

  • ponsoldt

    it's time, past time, for journalists to identify the political party of judges who issue political decisions, like this one--even if the judges don't appreciate such identification.
    republican-appointed federal judges have gone through a rigorous "litmus-testing" process and are as political as members of congress. this decision obviously is a political, not "judicial" one.

  • ColorBlindJustice

    Please, RDO, you're obfuscating as so many Obama sycophants have since the D.C. Circuit made the only decision it could. For the issue isn't a president's authority to make recess appointments. The issue is this president making a recess appointment when the Senate considered itself to be in session. It's not for any president of any party to decide when the Senate is or isn't in session. That is strictly the Senate's call under a quirky little thing called separation of powers. And Dave, Earl Warren was appointed by a Republican, too. So what's your point?

  • Dave

    It's worth noting that all three on this three-judge panel are GOP appointees.

  • OpinionsToGo

    "We will not do violence to the Constitution by ignoring the Framers' choice of words," Sentelle wrote.

    So, the judges are saying that they will not do violence to the Constitution by ignoring the Constitution. What is the Constitution if not the Framers' words?

  • Tom N

    Whoopee! The Constitution prevailed at this level!

  • RDO

    Isn't it interesting how when a republican is in office there are few objections about his power to appoint during Senate recesses. In fact, Republicans especially Dick Cheney have been trying to increase the power of the Presidency since Nixon. When a democrat is in office the republicans fight the power of the Executive office. Isn't there any thought by Repubs as to what will happen when and if a Repub ever gets elected again?

Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here.

Preparing comment abuse report for Article #1202585836438

Thank you!

This article's comments will be reviewed.