Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-11-01310/USCOURTS-caDC-11-01310-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
International Association of Machinists & Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, Local Lodge 1101
Intervenor for Respondent
Mathew Enterprise, Inc.
Petitioner
National Labor Relations Board
Respondent

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Decided November 7, 2014

No. 11-1310

MATHEW ENTERPRISE, INC., DOING BUSINESS AS STEVENS 

CREEK CHRYSLER JEEP DODGE,

PETITIONER

v.

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,

RESPONDENT

INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS & AEROSPACE 

WORKERS, AFL-CIO, LOCAL LODGE 1101,

INTERVENOR

Consolidated with 11-1406

On Motions to Lift Abeyance and Issue Mandate

Linda Dreeben, Deputy Associate General Counsel, 

National Labor Relations Board, filed the motion to lift 

abeyance and to issue the mandate and the reply thereto for 

respondent.

USCA Case #11-1310 Document #1521237 Filed: 11/07/2014 Page 1 of 6
2

David A. Rosenfeld and Caren P. Sencer filed the motion 

to issue the mandate and the reply thereto for intervenor 

International Association of Machinists & Aerospace 

Workers, AFL-CIO, Local Lodge 1101.

Daniel T. Berkley and Charles O. Zuver, Jr. filed the 

response for petitioner.

Before: GARLAND, Chief Judge, KAVANAUGH, Circuit 

Judge, and WILLIAMS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge 

KAVANAUGH.

KAVANAUGH, Circuit Judge: Mathew Enterprise has 

raised a Recess Appointments Clause challenge to the 

National Labor Relations Board’s order in this case. Based 

on the Supreme Court’s recent decision in National Labor 

Relations Board v. Noel Canning, No. 12-1281, 134 S. Ct. 

2550 (2014), we reject Mathew Enterprise’s claim.

The National Labor Relations Board is an independent 

federal agency. By statute, the Board consists of five 

members. See 29 U.S.C. § 153(a). The Board members are 

principal officers of the United States who must be appointed 

by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate, or 

appointed by the President alone during “the Recess” of the 

Senate. See U.S. Const., art. II, § 2, cl. 2, 3.

To exercise authority in a given case, a Board panel must 

include at least three validly appointed members. See 29 

U.S.C. § 153(b); New Process Steel, L.P. v. National Labor 

Relations Board, 560 U.S. 674, 683 (2010). A panel of three 

Board members decided petitioner Mathew Enterprise’s case. 

But Mathew Enterprise argues that one of those three Board

USCA Case #11-1310 Document #1521237 Filed: 11/07/2014 Page 2 of 6
3

members, Craig Becker, was appointed by the President 

without either Senate consent or compliance with the Recess 

Appointments Clause. If Member Becker was indeed 

unlawfully appointed, then a panel of only two validly 

appointed members exercised authority in this case, in 

violation of the law that requires three members for a panel. 

See New Process Steel, 560 U.S. at 683.

President Obama appointed Member Becker by recess 

appointment on March 27, 2010, during an intra-session 

Senate recess of 17 days. See 156 Cong. Rec. S2,180 (daily 

ed. Mar. 26, 2010) (opening Senate recess); 156 Cong. Rec. 

S2,181 (daily ed. Apr. 12, 2010) (closing Senate recess).

1

 

Mathew Enterprise contends that the 17-day recess was too 

short to permit a recess appointment. Based on the Supreme 

Court’s recent decision in Noel Canning, we disagree with 

Mathew Enterprise. We conclude that the President’s recess 

appointment of Member Becker was constitutionally valid.

As interpreted by the Supreme Court in Noel Canning,

the Recess Appointments Clause permits the President to “fill 

any existing vacancy during any recess – intra-session or 

inter-session – of sufficient length.” Noel Canning, slip op. at 

40, 134 S. Ct. at 2577; see also slip op. at 9, 134 S. Ct. at 

2561 (Recess Appointments Clause applies to intra-session 

recesses of “substantial length”). Under Noel Canning, 

therefore, the fact that Member Becker’s recess appointment 

 1 The length of a Senate recess is “‘ordinarily calculated by 

counting the calendar days running from the day after the recess 

begins and including the day the recess ends.’” National Labor 

Relations Board v. Noel Canning, No. 12-1281, slip op. at 20, 134 

S. Ct. 2550, 2566-67 (2014) (quoting Lawfulness of Recess 

Appointments During a Recess of the Senate Notwithstanding 

Periodic Pro Forma Sessions, 36 Op. OLC __ n.1, 2012 WL 

168645, at *1 n.1 (2012)).

USCA Case #11-1310 Document #1521237 Filed: 11/07/2014 Page 3 of 6
4

occurred during an intra-session (rather than inter-session)

Senate recess does not affect the validity of the appointment. 

Likewise, the fact that the vacancy arose before (rather than 

during) the recess in which the President appointed Member 

Becker does not affect the validity of the appointment. See 

Noel Canning, slip op. at 21-22, 134 S. Ct. at 2567. The only 

question is whether the 17-day recess was “of sufficient 

length.”

The Supreme Court’s opinion in Noel Canning 

establishes that a recess of 10 or more days suffices under the

Recess Appointments Clause. We know that because Noel 

Canning approvingly referred to and heavily relied on the 

“thousands” of recess appointments in the Nation’s history, 

the vast majority of which occurred during recesses of 10 or 

more days. Noel Canning, slip op. at 20, 134 S. Ct. at 2566. 

In light of what the Court saw as ambiguity in the 

constitutional text, the Court “hesitate[d] to upset the 

compromises and working arrangements . . . reached” by past 

Presidents and past Senates. Noel Canning, slip op. at 9, 134 

S. Ct. at 2560. Relying on that history, the Court stated that a 

3-day or shorter recess is “too short” and that a 4-to-9-day 

recess is “presumptively too short.” Noel Canning, slip op. at 

19, 21, 134 S. Ct. at 2566-67. By contrast, as the Court 

explained, recess appointments during recesses of 10 or more 

days have been very common historically. Importantly, the 

Court in Noel Canning did not place any new limits or 

conditions on the President’s authority to make recess 

appointments during a recess of 10 or more days. And it is 

not our place, particularly as a lower court, to impose new 

limits that would be inconsistent with the historical precedents 

relied on by the Supreme Court and that the Supreme Court 

itself did not see fit to impose in its comprehensive Noel 

Canning opinion.

USCA Case #11-1310 Document #1521237 Filed: 11/07/2014 Page 4 of 6
5

Consistent with the historical examples that the Supreme 

Court relied on in Noel Canning, moreover, the lawfulness of 

a recess appointment depends on the ultimate length of the 

recess in which the appointment occurred, not the number of 

days from the start of the recess to the appointment. See, e.g., 

Noel Canning, slip op. app. B, 134 S. Ct. 2550 app. B (citing 

numerous examples of recess appointments, including many 

where the appointment occurred before the 10th day of a 

recess that lasted 10 or more days). Therefore, the fact that 

the Becker appointment occurred on the first day of what 

turned out to be a 17-day recess does not affect the validity of 

the appointment. What matters under Noel Canning and the 

historical precedents is that the appointment occurred during a 

recess that lasted 10 or more days – here, a 17-day recess.2

Put simply, Noel Canning means that the President is 

permitted to make recess appointments during recesses of 10 

or more days. Therefore, the President’s recess appointment 

of Member Becker, which occurred during a 17-day Senate 

recess, was constitutionally valid. Accord Gestamp South 

Carolina, L.L.C. v. National Labor Relations Board, Nos. 11-

2362, 12-1041, 2014 WL 5013049, at *2 (4th Cir. Oct. 8, 

2014).

 2 The Court in Noel Canning did not attach any significance to

whether the recess appointment occurred during a Senate 

adjournment sine die, as opposed to a Senate adjournment to a fixed 

date. Rather, the Court stated that the question is whether the 

recess was “of sufficient length.” Noel Canning, slip op. at 40, 134 

S. Ct. at 2577. In any event, consistent with its usual practice for 

intra-session recesses, in the intra-session recess at issue in this case 

the Senate adopted a resolution on March 26, 2010, which stated 

that it was adjourning until April 12, 2010. 156 Cong. Rec. S2,180 

(daily ed. Mar. 26, 2010); see Noel Canning, slip op. at 9, 134 S. 

Ct. at 2561.

USCA Case #11-1310 Document #1521237 Filed: 11/07/2014 Page 5 of 6
6

In a previous judgment, we rejected Mathew Enterprise’s 

other challenges to the Board’s order in this case, but we 

withheld issuance of the mandate pending resolution of the 

Recess Appointments Clause issue. We now lift the order 

withholding issuance of the mandate, and we order issuance 

of the mandate.

So ordered.

USCA Case #11-1310 Document #1521237 Filed: 11/07/2014 Page 6 of 6