{
  "id": "R43032",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "R43032",
  "active": false,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 434052,
      "date": "2014-08-29",
      "retrieved": "2016-04-06T22:54:07.840433",
      "title": "Practical Implications of Noel Canning on the National Labor Relations Board: In Brief",
      "summary": "On January 4, 2012, President Obama exercised his recess appointment power and appointed three individuals\u2014Terrence F. Flynn, Sharon Block, and Richard F. Griffin, Jr.\u2014to be members of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or Board). Whether the President had authority to make these appointments pursuant to the Recess Appointments Clause was at issue in the 2014 Supreme Court case National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning. The case marked the first time that the Court would examine the scope of the Recess Appointments Clause.\nThis report provides an overview of the Recess Appointments Clause, as well as the unique factual circumstances of the NLRB recess appointments. In Noel Canning, a unanimous Supreme Court concluded that the three recess appointments were constitutionally invalid. The Court was sharply divided, however, when it came to the reasoning for why the appointments were infirm. Despite adopting a broad reading of the Recess Appointments Clause, the majority of the Court ruled the appointments invalid because it determined that the Senate was only in an intra-session recess of three days, a period of time deemed insufficient to trigger the President\u2019s recess appointment power.\nThe report also discusses some of the practical implications at issue for the NLRB in the aftermath of the Court\u2019s decision, and examines how the Board will address the roughly 700 decisions that were issued between January 4, 2012, and August 5, 2013, when the NLRB consisted of three Senate-confirmed members. Although the NLRB has not formally outlined its plans for these decisions, its approach is likely to follow the actions taken by the agency in 2010, when approximately 550 Board decisions were similarly called into question as a result of the Supreme Court\u2019s decision in New Process Steel, L.P. v. National Labor Relations Board. In July 2014, the NLRB\u2019s General Counsel indicated that the agency had already set aside its orders in 43 cases that were pending in federal appellate courts when Noel Canning was decided. In addition, to setting aside these orders, the Board has also filed motions with the various federal courts of appeals to return other pending cases to the Board for further action.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "encoding": "utf-8",
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R43032",
          "sha1": "dde6753d06e34699bc937bfd32c4bb3071e5b3fd",
          "filename": "files/20140829_R43032_dde6753d06e34699bc937bfd32c4bb3071e5b3fd.html",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R43032",
          "sha1": "c3d0af859f6f2621d9f21097b2d36613291c09b3",
          "filename": "files/20140829_R43032_c3d0af859f6f2621d9f21097b2d36613291c09b3.pdf",
          "images": null
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Constitutional Questions"
  ]
}