Recess Appointment - Legitimacy of Intrasession Appointments

Legitimacy of Intrasession Appointments

According to Henry B. Hogue, of the Government and Finance Division of the Congressional Research Service,

Recent Presidents have made both intersession (between sessions or Congresses) and intrasession (during a recess within a session) recess appointments. Intrasession recess appointments were unusual, however, prior to the 1940s. Intrasession recess appointments have sometimes provoked controversy in the Senate, and there is also an academic literature that has drawn their legitimacy into question.

It has been argued that as the clause was originally understood, it was expected that if the Senate was in session when an office became vacant, the president would make a standard advice-and-consent appointment at that time. In Federalist No. 67, Alexander Hamilton wrote:

The ordinary power of appointment is confined to the President and Senate jointly, and can therefore only be exercised during the session of the Senate; but as it would have been improper to oblige this body to be continually in session for the appointment of officers and as vacancies might happen in their recess, which it might be necessary for the public service to fill without delay

Another argument maintains that recess appointments were only to be made during intersession recesses, which during the early days of the country lasted between six and nine months, and were therefore required to prevent important offices from remaining unfilled for long periods. The current interpretation, this view holds, allows appointments to be made during recesses too brief to justify bypassing the Senate.

Historically, presidents tended to make recess appointments when the Senate was adjourned for lengthy periods. Since World War II, presidents have sometimes made recess appointments when Senate opposition appeared strong, hoping that the appointee might prove himself or herself in office and allow opposition to dissipate. Most recently, however, as partisanship on Capitol Hill has grown recess appointments have tended to solidify opposition to the appointee.

Following the 2003 intrasession appointment of William H. Pryor, Jr. to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, a small number of criminal defendants whose appeals were denied by panels including Pryor appealed on the basis that Pryor's appointment was invalid. The Eleventh Circuit, in an en banc decision in Evans v. Stephens held that the Constitution permitted both intrasession recess appointments and recess appointments to fill vacancies that "happened" prior to, rather than during, the congressional recess.