As 47th President of the United States, Donald Trump may be more focused and strategic than he was as the 45th, evidence of which may be a tweet of his from Sunday:

Any Republican Senator seeking the coveted LEADERSHIP position in the United States Senate must agree to Recess Appointments (in the Senate!), without which we will not be able to get people confirmed in a timely manner. Sometimes the votes can take two years, or more. This is what they did four years ago, and we cannot let it happen again. We need positions filled IMMEDIATELY!

Interestingly, the last two presidents, Mr. Trump included, have made no recess appointments. Congress has blocked them through strategic parliamentary maneuvering, but there is no guarantee that trend will continue.  In fact, it is more likely the two Chambers will coordinate to remove those hurdles and allow President Trump to make recess appointments as he wishes.

Article II of the Constitution says, “The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.” Accordingly, President Bill Clinton made 139 recess appointments to full-time positions and President George W. Bush made 171. President Barack Obama made 32 before his ability to make more was blocked.

There are two types of Congressional recesses: intersession (between sessions of Congress) and intrasession (during a session of Congress).  After a long debate, the Supreme Court ruled in the 2014 case Noel Canning that intrasession appointments were indeed constitutional, as long as the recesses were at least ten days long.

The Court also held that it was up to the House and Senate themselves to determine when they were or were not in session, which means that Congress retained the ability to block recess appointments entirely.  For example, a single member from Virginia or Maryland could show up occasionally and bang a gavel a couple of times to keep Congress in pro forma session and avoid a ten-day recess. The House does not share the Senate’s confirmation authority, but the Constitution bars either chamber from being in recess without the other’s agreement, so either chamber can therefore block recess appointments.

A recess appointment requires no nomination or confirmation. It lasts through final (sine die) adjournment of the Senate’s “next session.” In modern practice, a session is one year, or half of a Congress. Therefore, intersession appoints can last nearly a year and intrasession appointments can last nearly two. Recess appointments are entirely different from appointments of “acting” personnel. “Acting” personnel are regulated by the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998, which limits who can serve, for how long, and even what they can do. There are no limits on which offices can be filled by recess appointment. President Bush appointed three federal judges using the authority.

Republicans held House and Senate majorities for the remainder of Mr. Obama’s term and Mr. Trump held on to those majorities in the first two years of his presidency. No use was made of his recess appointment power then, and neither he nor Mr. Biden have had a majority of both houses since that time. Republican are likely to have both majorities next year, and it is unsurprising that President-Elect Trump is seeking to reclaim this power if he remains concerned about having nominees quickly confirmed.

Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of Gabe Neville Gabe Neville

Gabe Neville, a non-lawyer, helps Covington’s clients navigate the complexities of federal policymaking.

Gabe helps clients in various sectors understand individual policymakers and the legislative and regulatory tools they can use to advance their agendas. Using an intimate knowledge of the government gained…

Gabe Neville, a non-lawyer, helps Covington’s clients navigate the complexities of federal policymaking.

Gabe helps clients in various sectors understand individual policymakers and the legislative and regulatory tools they can use to advance their agendas. Using an intimate knowledge of the government gained over a nearly twenty-year period as a Congressional staffer, he helps clients proactively engage the legislative and executive branches of government. He also advises clients on responding to congressional inquiries and invitations to testify.

Gabe joined Covington after nearly two decades as a senior congressional staffer, most recently serving as chief of staff for Pennsylvania Congressman Joe Pitts (R, PA-16). He previously worked for the Pennsylvania state legislature, and managed several successful political campaigns. After managing Congressman Pitts’ first campaign for Congress, he served the congressman as press secretary and then as chief of staff. In that role, he advised the congressman on a wide range of issues, with special attention to the range of health, energy, and telecommunications issues that come before the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Other issues Gabe engaged in range from agriculture to human rights.

As chief of staff to a leading conservative, Gabe also developed deep relationships within the conservative movement. He frequently chaired meetings of the Values Action Team (VAT) and attended meetings of the Republican Study Committee (RSC). Gabe continues to work with these and other right-of-center organizations in Congress, including the House Freedom Caucus.

While on Capitol Hill, Gabe worked closely with the members and staff of the Health Subcommittee while Congressman Pitts chaired that panel. The subcommittee oversees a wide range of government health programs and issues, including public health; hospital construction; mental health and research; biomedical programs and health protection in general, including public and private health insurance; food and drugs; and drug abuse. The subcommittee has jurisdiction over federal agencies responsible for public health programs, regulation, and administration. They include the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), and others.

Photo of Nicholas Xenakis Nicholas Xenakis

Nick Xenakis draws on his Capitol Hill experience to provide regulatory and legislative advice to clients in a range of industries, including technology. He has particular expertise in matters involving the Judiciary Committees, such as intellectual property, antitrust, national security, immigration, and criminal…

Nick Xenakis draws on his Capitol Hill experience to provide regulatory and legislative advice to clients in a range of industries, including technology. He has particular expertise in matters involving the Judiciary Committees, such as intellectual property, antitrust, national security, immigration, and criminal justice.

Nick joined the firm’s Public Policy practice after serving most recently as Chief Counsel for Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Staff Director of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Human Rights and the Law Subcommittee, where he was responsible for managing the subcommittee and Senator Feinstein’s Judiciary staff. He also advised the Senator on all nominations, legislation, and oversight matters before the committee.

Previously, Nick was the General Counsel for the Senate Judiciary Committee, where he managed committee staff and directed legislative and policy efforts on all issues in the Committee’s jurisdiction. He also participated in key judicial and Cabinet confirmations, including of an Attorney General and two Supreme Court Justices. Nick was also responsible for managing a broad range of committee equities in larger legislation, including appropriations, COVID-relief packages, and the National Defense Authorization Act.

Before his time on Capitol Hill, Nick served as an attorney with the Federal Public Defender’s Office for the Eastern District of Virginia. There he represented indigent clients charged with misdemeanor, felony, and capital offenses in federal court throughout all stages of litigation, including trial and appeal. He also coordinated district-wide habeas litigation following the Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson v. United States (invalidating the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act).