Federal Appeals Court Strikes down President Obama’s NLRB Appointments
In a decision that could have an enormous impact on employers, a federal appeals court has ruled that President Barrack Obama violated the Constitution when he appointed three members to the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) without Senate approval.
The unanimous ruling from the three-member panel of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit could invalidate hundreds of NLRB regulations and decisions issued since January 4, 2012. President Obama is expected to appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court.
The issue stems from Obama’s use of so-called “recess appointments” to place favored candidates in important federal agencies who might not otherwise garner Senate approval. Though agency nominees generally require Senate confirmation, the Constitution allows the president to unilaterally fill agency vacancies when the Senate is in recess.
The “Appointments Clause” is an anachronism to the days when recess appointments were necessary because it could take weeks for lawmakers to travel to and from their districts and legislative recesses regularly lasted six to nine months.
Many Presidents, including Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, have used elastic (and often dubious) definitions of when Congress is “in recess” to install controversial agency members. Presidents most often do this when Congress in a pro forma session, in which either house is technically in session but no votes are held.
The D.C. Circuit’s ruling addresses President Obama’s recess appointments of Deputy Labor Secretary Sharon Block, union lawyer Richard Griffin and NLRB counsel Terence Lynn to fill NLRB vacancies. In the past year, the newly constituted NLRB has passed numerous regulations and issued decisions that make it easier for unions to organize.
The status of those actions is now in limbo because, without the three recess appointees, the NLRB lacked the required quorum for a valid vote. The D.C. Circuit panel, however, seemed unconcerned about this consequence as it chastised President Obama for making appointments during what it called an “imaginary recess.”
If allowed to stand, the President’s actions:
"would demolish the checks and balances inherent in the advice-and-consent requirement, giving the President free rein to appoint his desired nominees at any time he pleases, whether that time be a weekend, lunch, or even when the Senate is in session . . .This cannot be the law,” wrote Chief Judge David Sentelle.
A cautionary note: Despite the ruling employers should act as if the NLRB’s recent actions remain in effect. It will take months for the impact of this ruling to shake out and employers should not assume that any NLRB action is automatically null and void. We will closely follow any developments, including the likely appeal to the Supreme Court.
Stay tuned.
Featured Insights

In The News
Aug 24, 2026
David Schultz Reviews a Humorous—But Important—FDCPA Procedural Ruling

Press Release
Aug 20, 2026
115 Hinshaw Lawyers Recognized in 2027 Editions of The Best Lawyers in America® and Ones to Watch®

Press Release
Aug 20, 2026
Hinshaw’s Landmark Tower Client Project Receives 2026 Top Projects Award

Press Release
Aug 19, 2026
Fernando Rivera-Maissonet Elected as HNBA Region II Governor and Board of Governors Member

Employment Law Observer
Aug 17, 2026
Massachusetts’ First Paid Family Medical Leave Act Verdict Yields $4.75 Million Award

Press Release
Aug 13, 2026
Lauren Campisi Recognized as a 2026 BTI Client Service All-Star by BTI Consulting Group

Consumer Crossroads: Where Financial Services and Litigation Intersect
Aug 13, 2026
How Will Banks Be Impacted by the Proposed Regulation O Amendments?

Press Release
Aug 12, 2026
William Cook Honored With the Distinguished Service Award by the Chicago Bar Association

Webinar
Aug 12, 2026
John Ryan Presents on "Understanding what is Covered Under the TCPA Today"

In The News
Aug 12, 2026
Scott Seaman Analyzes California’s New Pleading Standards for Excess Insurance Policy Claims


