NLRB v. Noel Canning
The Court unanimously ruled that the president of the United States cannot use their authority under the Recess Appointment Clause of the United States Constitution to appoint public officials unless the United States Senate is in recess and not able to transact Senate business.
573 U.S. 513 · No. 12-1281 · 2013 term · Roberts Court
Decided Jun 26, 2014 · argued Jan 13, 2014
Miscellaneous · Executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states
Landmark · Separation of powers
Majority opinion: Stephen Breyer
The voteMajority
9–09 in the majority, 0 in dissent
No dissent (9–0)
Affirmed. NLRB lost.
What this ruling means
Affirmed: the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, so it stands (sometimes with changes the Court made to it).
NLRB was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Lost” means the Court did not give that side the result it asked for.
From the Supreme Court Database. A justice who agreed with the result but not the reasoning counts in the majority.
Summary
The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.
National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning, 573 U.S. 513 (2014), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court unanimously ruled that the president of the United States cannot use their authority under the Recess Appointment Clause of the United States Constitution to appoint public officials unless the United States Senate is in recess and not able to transact Senate business. The Court held that the clause allows the president to make appointments during both intra-session and inter-session recesses but only if the recess is of sufficient length, and if the Senate is actually unavailable for deliberation, thereby limiting future recess appointments. The Court also ruled that any office vacancy can be filled during the recess, regardless of when it arose. The case arose out of President Barack Obama's appointments of Sharon Block, Richard Griffin, and Terence Flynn to the National Labor Relations Board and Richard Cordray as the director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
Data notes
The text is Wikipedia’s (CC BY-SA 4.0), matched to the case by its citation, docket number or name and year, and is not checked against the opinion. The site keeps the article’s opening section, ending on its last full sentence. The one-sentence summary under the title is the Decisions list’s: Wikipedia’s own ruling sentence, or, tagged “AI-written”, one Claude wrote from this opening.
How the justices voted
Each justice who took part, placed by their Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 2013 term. Filled: the 9 in the majority. Hollow: the 0 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.
Majority(9)
Stephen BreyerWrote the majority opinion
Antonin ScaliaWrote a concurrence
Sonia SotomayorJoined the majority
Ruth GinsburgJoined the majority
Elena KaganJoined the majority
Anthony KennedyJoined the majority
John RobertsJoined the majority
Samuel AlitoJoined the majority
Clarence ThomasJoined the majority
Dissent(0)
- None.
Data notes
Each justice’s vote and what they wrote are from the justice-centered file of the Supreme Court Database. “Wrote a concurrence” means the justice sided with the majority and wrote separately; a justice who dissented in part is counted on the side they took overall. A justice who wrote nothing is listed as joining their side.
Positions are each justice’s Martin–Quinn score for the case’s term, the same scores as the Ideology page: negative is more liberal, positive more conservative. A score sums up a justice’s votes across the whole term, so it says where they usually sit, not why they voted as they did here. The median line is the Court’s median justice that term.
The parties
Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.
- Petitioner
- NLRBNational Labor Relations Board, or regional office or officer
- Respondent
- Noel CanningEmployer
- Reached the Court by
- Certiorari (the Court chose to hear it)
Data notes
The names are the two sides of the case’s title. The description under each is the Supreme Court Database’s category for that party, in its own wording. The petitioner is the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the decision below. “Why it was taken” appears only when the majority opinion says lower courts disagreed or were unsure about the question; reasons that would fit any case (“to resolve the question presented”, “an important question”) are left out.
The law at issue
The law the Court was asked to apply, and the kind of power it used to decide.
- Provision
- Article II, Section 2, Paragraph 2 (appointments clause)
- Kind of law
- Constitution
- Decided by
- Judicial review (national level); Statutory construction
Data notes
The Supreme Court Database codes the main constitutional provision, statute or court rule each case turned on, and the basis of the decision: judicial review of a federal or state law, interpreting a statute, supervising the lower courts, and so on. A case can rest on more than one. “Overruled” counts only where the majority opinion says so.
Timeline
What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.
- Jun 26, 2014DecidedDecided · Decided 9–0: affirmed. NLRB lost.
- Jan 13, 2014ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
- Not datedTaken upTaken up · The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case (certiorari).
- Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Began in and was decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit: vacated.
Data notes
From the Supreme Court Database: the court the case began in, the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed and what that court did, how the case came to the Court, and the dates of argument and decision. The database does not date the steps in the lower courts. Court names are the database’s.
Other decisions on the same issue
11 other argued cases since 1946 on executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states, newest first.
- Trump v. SlaughterLandmark · Separation of powers146 S. Ct. 2283Jun 29, 2026 · 146 S. Ct. 2283MiscellaneousLandmark · Separation of powers6–36–3 band
- Learning Resources v. TrumpLandmark · Foreign607 U.S. 229Feb 20, 2026 · 607 U.S. 229MiscellaneousLandmark · Foreign6–36–3 band
- Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Association of America, Limited601 U.S. 416May 16, 2024 · 601 U.S. 416Miscellaneous7–27–2 band
- Collins v. Yellen141 S. Ct. 1761Jun 23, 2021 · 141 S. Ct. 1761Miscellaneous7–27–2 band
- United States v. Arthrex Inc.141 S. Ct. 1970Jun 21, 2021 · 141 S. Ct. 1970Miscellaneous5–45–4 band
- Trump v. Mazars USA, LLPLandmark · Domestic140 S. Ct. 2019Jul 9, 2020 · 140 S. Ct. 2019MiscellaneousLandmark · Domestic7–27–2 band
- Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau140 S. Ct. 2183Jun 29, 2020 · 140 S. Ct. 2183Miscellaneous5–45–4 band
- NLRB v. SW General, Inc.137 S. Ct. 929Mar 21, 2017 · 137 S. Ct. 929Miscellaneous6–27–2 band
- Zivotofsky v. KerryLandmark · Foreign576 U.S. 1Jun 8, 2015 · 576 U.S. 1MiscellaneousLandmark · Foreign6–36–3 band
- Menachem Binyamin Zivotofsky, by His Parents and Guardians, Ari Z. and Naomi Siegman Zivotofsky, Petitioner v. Hillary Rodham Clinton, Secretary of State566 U.S. 189Mar 26, 2012 · 566 U.S. 189Miscellaneous8–18–1 band
- Free Enterprise Fund and Beckstead and Watts, LLP v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board et al.561 U.S. 477Jun 28, 2010 · 561 U.S. 477Miscellaneous5–45–4 band
Data notes
Every other orally argued case with a clear vote, from the 1946 term on, that the Supreme Court Database files under the same issue as this one. The database gives each case one issue from a list of about 270 (abortion, search and seizure of vehicles, the death penalty, and so on), whatever law it turned on.
Official record
Read the full opinion on Justia, the argument audio on Oyez and Wikipedia. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.