Every since the President decided to make recess appointments when the Senate was still in session his actions have been challenged in federal  court.  Back in January a federal appeals court ruled this the “recess appointments” President Obama made to the National Labor Relations Board were an abuse of power, that he acted when the Senate was not actually in a recess and and the board has not had quorum to operate and yesterday a second federal court, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the Obama appointments to the NLRB were invalid.

The January ruling covered appointments of of Richard Griffin (2012-present) and Sharon Block (2012-present), yesterday’s ruling invalidated the earlier appointment of Craig Becker  who served from 2010-2012.

Yesterday’s ruling by the Philadelphia District court agreed with the one made by the DC District court back in January, saying that recess appointments could only be made between congressional sessions, not when congress is on a break/holiday.  

Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Foundation, issued the following statement in light of the court’s decision:

“Today, another federal appeals court has invalidated one of President Barack Obama’s so-called ‘recess appointments’ to the National Labor Relations Board. As National Right to Work Foundation attorneys have argued in several courts, the Obama ‘recess appointments’ have clearly violated the U.S. Constitution.

“As a result, the Board has lacked a quorum since at least August 2011, and under a U.S. Supreme Court precedent established in New Process Steel, L. P. v. NLRB (2010), the Board’s biased and decidedly pro-Big Labor rulings since then are therefore invalidated. Over 1,500 NLRB decisions may be invalid as a result. This underscores the constitutional chaos this President has created by gaming the system for union bosses.

“Today’s decision is a victory for independent-minded workers who have received unjust treatment at the hands of the pro-forced unionism NLRB over the last few years.”

The January ruling said recess appointments made by all recent presidents have been unconstitutional. arguing that the president’s recess appointment powers don’t apply to “intrasession” appointments (such as when they close for a holiday) only after Congress has adjourned a session permanently, which usually means only at the end of a year.

If President’s have been making these unconstitutional appointments for decades why is the court first ruling against them now? The honest truth is no one had ever asked (challenged them) before.

Obama’s “recess” appointments had created a NLRB that was very biased toward labor. However based on the two court decisions many of those unfair pro-labor decisions are invalid(see below).