Balkinization  

Thursday, April 16, 2020

The Adjournment Clause

Mark Tushnet

Just for the record: When Noel Canning was pending, I was among those who noted the possibility of using the Adjournment Clause (as I now suppose we have to refer to it) to trigger the power to make recess appointments (if, I suppose, an adjournment leads to a "recess"). As we now know, the Clause requires disagreement between the houses "with Respect to the Time of Adjournment." In the Pildes/Levinson world of "separation of parties not powers," one might think that a president would be able to orchestrate such disagreement when, as is the case now, her or her party controls one (or both) houses. [I assume that disagreement "with respect to the time of adjournment" exists when one house wants to adjourn and the other doesn't.] Why the Majority Leader hasn't (yet) gone along is an interesting fact, and one can imagine that a threat by the president to withdraw Justin Walker's nomination to the DC Circuit might get Senator McConnell to move.

But, OTOH, the president's reference to the Adjournment Clause is like most of his references to constitutional powers -- not to be taken seriously as a statement of his intentions.

Older Posts
Newer Posts
Home