Canning v. National Labor Relations Board
403 U.S. App. D.C. 350
| D.C. Cir. | 2013Background
- Noel Canning challenged an NLRB order finding unfair labor practices for refusing to sign a written collective bargaining agreement after negotiations with Teamsters Local 760.
- Three of the five NLRB members were appointed by the President in January 2012 during a Senate session, later argued to be invalid recess appointments; Noel Canning contends the Board lacked a quorum on February 8, 2012.
- Noel Canning raised statutory objections (sufficiency of evidence for agreement and enforceability under Washington law) and constitutional objections (lack of Board quorum due to alleged invalid recess appointments).
- The panel majority vacated the Board’s order and held the three disputed appointments invalid, thereby voiding the Board’s action for lack of a quorum.
- The concurrence cautioned against reaching broader constitutional rulings unless necessary to decide the case and agreed the “arise during the Recess” interpretation is correct, but did not dispute the result that the Board lacked a quorum.
- The decision ultimately vacates the Board’s order and denies enforcement; the case involves significant constitutional questions about the Recess Appointments Clause and separation of powers.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Board had a valid quorum on the date of its order | Noel Canning—Board lacked three valid members | Board contends recess appointments valid | Board had no quorum; order vacated |
| Meaning of “the Recess” and “happen” in the Recess Appointments Clause | Inter-session recess interpretation; vacancies must arise during intersession recess | Board advocates intrasession recess interpretation | Inter-session interpretation; vacancies must arise during the intersession recess; appointments invalid |
| Whether the case requires consideration of state-law enforceability (Washington law) | Choice of law to decide enforceability should be reviewed | NLRA governs; no need to apply Washington law | Court lacks jurisdiction to consider state-law argument; statutory grounds control |
Key Cases Cited
- New Process Steel, L.P. v. NLRB, 130 S. Ct. 2635 (Supreme Court (2010)) (Board cannot act without a quorum; extraordinary circumstances)
- NLRB v. Cheney California Lumber Co., 327 U.S. 385 (Supreme Court (1946)) (Board must have authority to enforce; where no order exists, enforcement is improper)
- Evans v. Stephens, 387 F.3d 1220 (11th Cir. 2004) (intrasession recess interpretation cited by Board not persuasive here)
- Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (Supreme Court (1803)) (establishes judicial duty to interpret the law when conflicts arise)
- Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (Supreme Court (1997)) (separation of powers and constitutional interpretation guidance)
- INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (Supreme Court (1983)) (limits on congressional action; separation of powers context)