Supreme Court could shape Trump's recess appointment strategy
- The Supreme Court ruled in 2014 that Obama's recess appointments were illegal due to the Senate not being in recess.
- President Trump may face challenges regarding recess appointments with a more conservative court now in place.
- The resolution of these issues could define the executive's appointment powers moving forward.
In 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court decided a significant case regarding recess appointments made by former President Barack Obama. The court ruled that these appointments to the National Labor Relations Board were invalid because the Senate was not officially in recess when Obama acted. This ruling established that a recess must be at least ten days long for a president to make such appointments unilaterally. Justice Antonin Scalia articulated a strong opinion suggesting that the provisions concerning recess appointments are outdated due to modern advancements in communication, which allow the Senate to reconvene quickly. This ruling has implications for future presidents, specifically Donald Trump, who may consider using this power after the new Congress begins in January 2025. Trump's administration anticipates potential conflicts with the conservative-leaning Supreme Court, especially since the composition of the court has changed since 2014 with Trump's own appointments of Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett. These justices have no established record about recess appointments, making it uncertain how they would rule on similar matters in the future. Furthermore, an extraordinary legal challenge could emerge if Trump attempts to assert a provision that allows him to force the Senate to adjourn against its will, thus enabling these appointments to take place. This situation highlights lingering tensions and the balance of power between Congress and the presidency, including how appointments are handled amid procedural disputes.