It usually isn’t the best idea to put too much stock into Supreme Court oral arguments, for a number of reasons. But given the amount of skepticism the justices seemed to show for President Barack Obama to make recess appointments to the National Relations Board, it’s hard not to wonder if the Court’s already made up its mind in NLRB v. Noel Canning—and what this might mean for the world of labor law.
My experience is that oral arguments, while often interesting, rarely open much of a window into exactly how a court will actually decide the case. Today’s Supreme Court argument in NLRB v. Noel Canning may be an exception.
The Constitutional standing of President Barack Obama’s National Labor Relations Board recess appointments heads into murky waters as the Supreme Court heard the oral arguments in the NLRB v. Noel Canning case on Monday morning.
Separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches took the forefront during this morning’s Supreme Court argument in NLRB v. Noel Canning, which involves the issue of whether President Obama’s recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board were valid.
In perhaps the most important constitutional case involving the NLRB since the constitutionality of the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA” or “Act”) was decided 76 years ago in Jones & Laughlin v. NLRB, the Supreme Court this morning heard argument in NLRB v. Noel Canning.
This morning the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in NLRB v. Noel Canning involving the validity of the president’s recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board.
As we previously reported, the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Noel Canning v. NLRB, 705 F.3d 490 (D.C. Cir. 2013) struck down President Barack Obama’s “recess appointments” of three members of the National Labor Relations Board (“Board”) as unconstitutional, placing into question the legitimacy of numerous (mostly pro-union/employee) decisions issued during 2012.
On October 22, an NLRB administrative law judge found that an employer violated the National Labor Relations Act when it refused to bargain with a union that had been certified by the Board unless the union agreed that any deal would be voided if the U.S. Supreme Court upholds the D.C. Circuit’s decision in Noel Canning. 12-CA-101034.
This week marks the first Monday in October, which for Supreme Court watchers is a holiday: the start of a new term. While not everyone gets that excited about the new term, there are several cases that the Court intends to hear this term that merit attention from businesses in the automotive sector.
Following a term with many employment-related decisions—and with outcomes emphatically pro-employer—the United States Supreme Court will hear the first oral arguments of its 2013-2014 term, which are currently scheduled to begin on October 7, 2013.