National Labor Relations Board v. Canning

CANNING et al.

certiorari to the united states court of appeals for

the district of columbia circuit No. 12–1281. Argued January 13, 2014—Decided June 26, 2014 Respondent Noel Canning, a Pepsi-Cola distributor, asked the D. C. Circuit to set aside an order of the National Labor Relations Board, claiming that the Board lacked a quorum because three of the five Board members had been invalidly appointed. The nominations of the three members in question were pending in the Senate when it passed a December 17, 2011, resolution providing for a series of “pro forma session[s],” with “no business . . . transacted,” every Tuesday and Friday through January 20, 2012. S. J., 112th Cong., 1st Sess., 923. Invoking the Recess Appointments Clause—which gives the President the power “to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate,” Art. II, § 2, cl. 3—the President appointed the three members in question between the January 3 and January 6 pro forma sessions. Noel Canning argued primarily that the appointments were invalid because the 3-day adjournment between those two sessions was not long enough to trigger the Recess Appointments Clause. The D. C. Circuit agreed that the appointments fell outside the scope of the Clause, but on different grounds. It held that the phrase “the recess,” as used in the Clause, does not include intra-session recesses, and that the phrase “vacancies that may happen during the recess” applies only to vacancies that first come into existence during a recess. Held: 1. The Recess Appointments Clause empowers the President to fill any existing vacancy during any recess—intra-session or inter-session— of sufficient length. Pp. 522–549. (a) Two background considerations are relevant to the questions here. First, the Recess Appointments Clause is a subsidiary method for appointing officers of the United States. The Flounders intended the norm to be the method of appointment in Article II, § 2, cl. 2, which requires Senate approval of Presidential nominations, at least for principal officers. The Recess Appointments Clause reflects the tension between the President's continuous need for “the assistance of subordinates,” Myers v. United States, 272 U. S. 52, 117, and the Senate's early practice of meeting for a single brief session each year. The Clause should be interpreted as granting the President the power to make ap-

pointments during a recess but not offering the President the authority routinely to avoid the need for Senate confirmation.

Second, in interpreting the Clause, the Court puts significant weight upon historical practice. The longstanding “practice of the government,” McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 401, can inform this Court's determination of “what the law is” in a separation-of-powers case, Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 176. See also, e. g., Mistretta v. United States, 488 U. S. 361, 401; The Pocket Veto Case, 279 U. S. 655, 689–690. There is a great deal of history to consider here, for Presidents have made recess appointments since the beginning of the Republic. Their frequency suggests that the Senate and President have recognized that such appointments can be both necessary and appropriate in certain circumstances. The Court, in interpreting the Clause for the first time, must hesitate to upset the compromises and working arrangements that the elected branches of Government themselves have reached. Pp. 522–526.

(b) The phrase “the recess of the Senate” applies to both intersession recess (i. e., breaks between formal sessions of the Senate) and intra-session recesses (i. e., breaks in the midst of a formal session) of substantial length. The constitutional text is ambiguous. Founding-era dictionaries and usages show that the phrase “the recess” can encompass intra-session breaks. And this broader interpretation is demanded by the purpose of the Clause, which is to allow the President to make appointments so as to ensure the continued functioning of the Government while the Senate is away. The Senate is equally away and unavailable to participate in the appointments process during both an inter-session and an intra-session recess. History offers further support for this interpretation. From the founding until the Great Depression, every time the Senate took a substantial, nonholiday intra-session recess, the President made recess appointments. President Andrew Johnson made the first documented intra-session recess appointments in 1867 and 1868, and Presidents made similar appointments in 1921 and 1929. Since 1929, and particularly since the end of World War II, Congress has shortened its inter-session breaks and taken longer and more frequent intra-session breaks; Presidents accordingly have made more intra-session recess appointments. Meanwhile, the Senate has never taken any formal action to deny the validity of intra-session recess appointments. In 1905 the Senate Judiciary Committee defined “the recess” as “the period of time when the Senate” is absent and cannot “participate as a body in making appointments,” S. Rep. No. 4389, 58th Cong., 3d Sess., 2, and that functional definition encompasses both intra-session and inter-session recesses. A 1940 law regulating the payment of recess appointees has also been interpreted functionally by the Comp-

trol ler General (an officer of the Legislative Branch). In sum, Presidents have made intra-session recess appointments for a century and a half, and the Senate has never taken formal action to oppose them. That practice is long enough to entitle it to “great weight in a proper interpretation” of the constitutional provision. The Pocket Veto Case , supra, at 689.

The Clause does not say how long a recess must be in order to fall within the Clause, but even the Solicitor General concedes that a 3-day recess would be too short. The Adjournments Clause, Art. I, § 5, cl. 4, reflects the fact that a 3-day break is not a significant interruption of legislative business. A Senate recess that is so short that it does not require the consent of the House under that Clause is not long enough to trigger the President's recess-appointment power. Moreover, the Court has not found a single example of a recess appointment made during an intra-session recess that was shorter than 10 days. There are a few examples of inter-session recess appointments made during recesses of less than 10 days, but these are anomalies. In light of historical practice, a recess of more than 3 days but less than 10 days is presumptively too short to fall within the Clause. The word “presumptively” leaves open the possibility that a very unusual circumstance could demand the exercise of the recess-appointment power during a shorter break. Pp. 526–538.

(c) The phrase “vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate,” Art. II, § 2, cl. 3, applies both to vacancies that first come into existence during a recess and to vacancies that initially occur before a recess but continue to exist during the recess. Again, the text is ambiguous. As Thomas Jefferson observed, the Clause is “certainly susceptible of [two] constructions.” Letter to Wilson Cary Nicholas (Jan. 26, 1802), in 36 Papers of Thomas Jefferson 433. It “may mean `vacancies that may happen to be' or `may happen to fall' ” during a recess. Ibid. And, as Attorney General Wirt wrote in 1821, the broader reading is more consonant with the “reason and spirit” of the Clause. 1 Op. Atty. Gen. 632. The purpose of the Clause is to permit the President, who is always acting to execute the law, to obtain the assistance of subordinate officers while the Senate, which acts only in intervals, is unavailable to confirm them. If a vacancy arises too late in the session for the President and Senate to have an opportunity to select a replacement, the narrower reading could paralyze important functions of the Federal Government, particularly at the time of the founding. The broader interpretation ensures that offices needing to be filled can be filled. It does raise a danger that the President may attempt to use the recess-appointment power to circumvent the Senate's advice and consent role. But the narrower interpretation risks undermining con-

stitutionally conferred powers more seriously and more often. It would prevent a President from making any recess appointment to fill a vacancy that arose before a recess, no matter who the official, how dire the need, how uncontroversial the appointment, and how late in the session the office fell vacant.

Historical practice also strongly flavors the broader interpretation. The tradition of applying the Clause to pre-recess vacancies dates at least to President Madison. Nearly every Attorney General to consider the question has approved the practice, and every President since James Buchanan has made recess appointments to pre-existing vacancies. It is a fair inference from the historical data that a large proportion of recess appointments over our Nation's history have filled pre-recess vacancies. The Senate Judiciary Committee in 1863 did issue a Report disagreeing with the broader interpretation, and Congress passed a law known as the Pay Act prohibiting payment of recess appointments to pre-recess vacancies soon after. However, the Senate subsequently abandoned its hostility. In 1940 the Senate amended the Pay Act to permit payment of recess appointees in circumstances that would be unconstitutional under the narrower interpretation. In short, Presidents have made recess appointments to pre-existing vacancies for two centuries, and the Senate as a body has not countered this practice for nearly three-quarters of a century, perhaps longer. The Court is reluctant to upset this traditional practice where doing so would seriously shrink the authority that Presidents have believed existed and have exercised for so long. Pp. 538–549. 2. For purposes of the Recess Appointments Clause, the Senate is in session when it says that it is, provided that, under its own rules, it retains the capacity to transact Senate business. This standard is consistent with the Constitution's broad delegation of authority to the Senate to determine how and when to conduct its business, as recognized by this Court's precedents. See Art. I, § 5, cl. 2; Marshall Field & Co. v. Clark, 143 U. S. 649, 672; United States v. Ballin, 144 U. S. 1, 5, 9. Although the Senate's own determination of when it is and is not in session should be given great weight, the Court's deference cannot be absolute. When the Senate is without the capacity to act, under its own rules, it is not in session even if it so declares. Under the standard set forth here, the Senate was in session during the pro forma sessions at issue. It said it was in session, and Senate rules make clear that the Senate retained the power to conduct business. The Senate could have conducted business simply by passing a unanimous consent agreement. In fact, it did so; it passed a bill by unanimous consent during its pro forma session on December 23, 2011. See 2011 S. J. 924; Pub. L. 112–78. The Court will not, as the Solicitor

Genera l urges, engage in an in-depth factual appraisal of what the Senate actually did during its pro forma sessions in order to determine whether it was in recess or in session for purposes of the Recess Appointments Clause.

Because the Senate was in session during its pro forma sessions, the President made the recess appointments at issue during a 3-day recess. Three days is too short a time to bring a recess within the scope of the Clause, so the President lacked the authority to make those appointments. Pp. 549–557. 705 F. 3d 490, affirmed. Breyer, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Kennedy, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan, JJ., joined. Scalia, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Roberts, C. J., and Thomas and Alito, JJ., joined, post, p. 569.

Solicitor General Verrilli argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were Assistant Attorney General Delery, Deputy Solicitor General Kneedler, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Brinkmann, Curtis E. Gannon, Douglas N. Letter, Melissa N. Patterson, Benjamin M. Shultz, Lafe E. Solomon, John H. Ferguson, Margery E. Lieber, and Linda Dreeben. James B. Coppess, Bradley T. Raymond, and Laurence Gold filed briefs for International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 760 in support of petitioner.

Noel J. Francisco argued the cause for respondent Noel Canning. With him on the brief were G. Roger King, Gary E. Lofand, Lily Fu Claffee, and Rachel L. Brand.

Miguel A. Estrada argued the cause and filed a brief for Senator Mitch McConnell et al. as amici curiae urging affirmance.*

eral, and Megan A. Kirkpatrick, Assistant Solicitor General, and by the Attorneys General for their respective States as follows: Thomas C. Horne of Arizona, John W. Suthers of Colorado, Pamela Jo Bondi of Florida, Sam Olens of Georgia, Lawrence G. Wasden of Idaho, Derek Schmidt of Kansas, Bill Schuette of Michigan, Timothy C. Fox of Montana, Jon Brun-ing of Nebraska, Michael DeWine of Ohio, E. Scott Pruitt of Oklahoma, Alan Wilson of South Carolina, Marty J. Jackley of South Dakota, Greg Abbott of Texas, Kenneth T. Cuccinelli II of Virginia, and Patrick Morri-sey of West Virginia; for the American Civil Rights Union by Peter J. Ferrara; for the Atlantic Legal Foundation et al. by William S. Consovoy, Thomas R. McCarthy, and Martin S. Kaufman; for the Cato Institute by Ilya Shapiro; for Citizens United et al. by William J. Olson, Herbert W. Titus, John S. Miles, Jeremiah L. Morgan, Michael Boos, and Michael Connelly; for the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace et al. by Mark T. Stancil, William J. Trunk, and Deborah R. White; for Constitutional Law Scholars by Michael W. McConnell, pro se; for the Council of Labor Law Equality by Arthur B. Smith, Jr., and Christopher C. Murray; for Daycon Products Co., Inc., by Jay P . Krupin, Andrew M. Grossman, and Lee A. Casey; for the Independence Institute by Sean R. Gallagher, Ben-nett L. Cohen, and David B. Kopel; for the International Longshore and Warehouse Union by Robert Remar; for Judicial Watch, Inc., et al. by Paul J. Orfanedes and Ramona R. Cotca; for the Landmark Legal Foundation by Richard P . Hutchison; for the Mountain States Legal Foundation by Steven J. Lechner; for the National Federation of Independent Business Small Business Legal Center by Mark E. Solomons, Laura Metcoff Klaus, Justin F. Keith, Karen R. Harned, and Elizabeth Milito; for the National Right to Work Legal Defense and Education Foundation, Inc., et al. by Thomas H. Odom, Glenn M. Taubman, and John N. Raudabaugh; for Originalist Scholars by Michael D. Ramsey; for Political Scientists et al. by Allyson N. Ho, Nelson Lund, and Vanessa R. Brown; for Speaker of the United States House of Representatives John Boehner by Jay Alan Sekulow, Stuart J. Roth, Colby M. May, Jordan A. Sekulow, Cecilia Noland-Heil, and Laura B. Hernandez; for the Southeastern Legal Foundation by Shannon Lee Goessling, Gregory B. Robertson, Michael R. Shebelskie, and Kurt G. Larkin; for the State National Bank of Big Spring et al. by C. Boyden Gray, Adam J. White, Kathryn E. Tarbert, Sam Kaz-man, and Hans Bader; for Brian W. Bulger et al. by Mr. Bulger, pro se; for Robert B. Dove et al. by D. John Sauer; and for Tuan Samahon by Mr. Samahon, pro se.

The first concerns the scope of the words “recess of the Senate.” Does that phrase refer only to an inter-session recess (i. e., a break between formal sessions of Congress), or does it also include an intra-session recess, such as a summer recess in the midst of a session? We conclude that the Clause applies to both kinds of recess.

The second question concerns the scope of the words “vacancies that may happen.” Does that phrase refer only to vacancies that first come into existence during a recess, or does it also include vacancies that arise prior to a recess but continue to exist during the recess? We conclude that the Clause applies to both kinds of vacancy.

The third question concerns calculation of the length of a “recess.” The President made the appointments here at issue on January 4, 2012. At that time the Senate was in recess pursuant to a December 17, 2011, resolution providing for a series of brief recesses punctuated by “pro forma session[s],” with “no business . . . transacted,” every Tuesday and Friday through January 20, 2012. S. J., 112th Cong., 1st Sess., 923 (2011) (hereinafter 2011 S. J.). In calculating the length of a recess are we to ignore the pro forma sessions, thereby treating the series of brief recesses as a single, month-long recess? We conclude that we cannot ignore these pro forma sessions.

Our answer to the third question means that, when the appointments before us took place, the Senate was in the midst of a 3-day recess. Three days is too short a time to bring a recess within the scope of the Clause. Thus we conclude that the President lacked the power to make the recess appointments here at issue.

The Pepsi-Cola distributor subsequently asked the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to set the Board's order aside. It claimed that three of the five Board members had been invalidly appointed, leaving the Board without the three lawfully appointed members necessary for it to act. See 29 U. S. C. § 160(f) (providing for judicial review); § 153(a) (providing for a five-member Board); § 153(b) (providing for a three-member quorum); New Process Steel, L. P . v. NLRB , 560 U. S. 674, 687–688 (2010) (in the absence of a lawfully appointed quorum, the Board cannot exercise its powers).

The three members in question were Sharon Block, Richard Griffin, and Terence Flynn. In 2011 the President had nominated each of them to the Board. As of January 2012, Flynn's nomination had been pending in the Senate awaiting confirmation for approximately a year. The nominations of each of the other two had been pending for a few weeks. On January 4, 2012, the President, invoking the Recess Appointments Clause, appointed all three to the Board.

The distributor argued that the Recess Appointments Clause did not authorize those appointments. It pointed out that on December 17, 2011, the Senate, by unanimous consent, had adopted a resolution providing that it would take a series of brief recesses beginning the following day. See 2011 S.

The Court of Appeals agreed that the appointments fell outside the scope of the Clause. But the court set forth different reasons. It held that the Clause's words “the recess of the Senate” do not include recesses that occur within a formal session of Congress, i. e., intra-session recesses. Rather those words apply only to recesses between those formal sessions, i. e., inter-session recesses. Since the second session of the 112th Congress began on January 3, 2012, the day before the President's appointments, those appointments occurred during an intra-session recess, and the appointments consequently fell outside the scope of the Clause. 705 F. 3d 490, 499–507 (CADC 2013).

The Court of Appeals added that, in any event, the phrase “vacancies that may happen during the recess” applies only to vacancies that come into existence during a recess. Id., at 507–512. The vacancies that Members Block, Griffin, and Flynn were appointed to fill had arisen before the beginning of the recess during which they were appointed. For this reason too the President's appointments were invalid. And, because the Board lacked a quorum of validly appointed members when it issued its order, the order was invalid. 29 U. S. C. § 153(b); New Process Steel, supra.

We granted the Solicitor General's petition for certiorari. We asked the parties to address not only the Court of Appeals' interpretation of the Clause but also the distributor's initial argument, namely, “[w]hether the President's recess-appointment power may be exercised when the Senate is

We shall answer all three questions presented. We recognize that the President has nominated others to fill the positions once occupied by Members Block, Griffin, and Flynn, and that the Senate has confirmed these successors. But, as the parties recognize, the fact that the Board now unquestionably has a quorum does not moot the controversy about the validity of the previously entered Board order. And there are pending before us petitions from decisions in other cases involving challenges to the appointment of Board Member Craig Becker. The President appointed Member Becker during an intra-session recess that was not punctuated by pro forma sessions, and the vacancy Becker filled had come into existence prior to the recess. See Congressional Research Service, H. Hogue, M. Carey, M. Greene, & M. Bearden, The Noel Canning Decision and Recess Appointments Made From 1981–2013, p. 28 (Feb. 4, 2013) (hereinafter The Noel Canning Decision); NLRB, Members of the NLRB Since 1935, online at http://www.nlrb.gov/who-we-are/ board /members-nlrb-1935 (all Internet materials as visited June 24, 2014, and available in Clerk of Court's case file). Other cases involving similar challenges are also pending in the Courts of Appeals. E. g., NLRB v. New Vista Nursing & Rehabilitation, No. 11–3440 etc. (CA3). Thus, we believe it is important to answer all three questions that this case presents.

Before turning to the specific questions presented, we shall mention two background considerations that we find relevant to all three. First, the Recess Appointments Clause sets forth a subsidiary, not a primary, method for appointing officers of the United States. The immediately preceding Clause—Article II, Section 2, Clause 2—provides the primary method of appointment. It says that the President “shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Con-

The Federalist Papers make clear that the Flounders intended this method of appointment, requiring Senate approval, to be the norm (at least for principal officers). Alexander Hamilton wrote that the Constitution vests the power of nomination in the President alone because “one man of discernment is better fitted to analise and estimate the peculiar qualities adapted to particular offices, than a body of men of equal, or perhaps even of superior discernment.” The Federalist No. 76, p. 510 (J. Cooke ed. 1961). At the same time, the need to secure Senate approval provides “an excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism in the President, and would tend greatly to preventing the appointment of unfit characters from State prejudice, from family connection, from personal attachment, or from a view to popularity.” Id., at 513. Hamilton further explained that the

“ordinary power of appointment is confided 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, the succeeding clause is evidently intended to authorise the President singly to make temporary appointments.” Id., No. 67, at 455.

Thus the Recess Appointments Clause reflects the tension between, on the one hand, the President's continuous need for “the assistance of subordinates,” Myers v. United States, 272 U. S. 52, 117 (1926), and, on the other, the Senate's practice, particularly during the Republic's early years, of meeting for a single brief session each year, see Art. I, § 4, cl. 2; Amdt. 20, § 2 (requiring the Senate to “assemble” only “once

Second, in interpreting the Clause, we put significant weight upon historical practice . For one thing, the interpretive questions before us concern the allocation of power between two elected branches of Government. Long ago Chief Justice Marshall wrote that

“a doubtful question, one on which human reason may pause, and the human judgment be suspended, in the decision of which the great principles of liberty are not concerned, but the respective powers of those who are equally the representatives of the people, are to be adjusted; if not put at rest by the practice of the government, ought to receive a considerable impression from that practice.” McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 401 (1819).

And we later confirmed that “[l]ong settled and established practice is a consideration of great weight in a proper interpretation of constitutional provisions” regulating the relationship between Congress and the President. The Pocket Veto Case, 279 U. S. 655, 689 (1929); see also id., at 690 (“[A] practice of at least twenty years duration `on the part of the executive department, acquiesced in by the legislative department, . . . is entitled to great regard in determining the true construction of a constitutional provision the phraseology of which is in any respect of doubtful meaning' ” (quoting State v. South Norwalk, 77 Conn. 257, 264, 58 A. 759, 761 (1904))).

That principle is neither new nor controversial. As James Madison wrote, it “was foreseen at the birth of the Constitution, that difficulties and differences of opinion might occasionally arise in expounding terms & phrases necessarily used in such a charter . . . and that it might require a regular course of practice to liquidate & settle the meaning of some of them.” Letter to Spencer Roane (Sept. 2, 1819), in 8 Writings of James Madison 447, 450 (G. Hunt ed. 1908). And our cases have continually confirmed Madison's view. E. g., Mistretta v. United States, 488 U. S. 361, 401 (1989); Dames & Moore v. Regan, 453 U. S. 654, 686 (1981); Youngs-town Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer , 343 U. S. 579, 610–611 (1952) (Frankfurter, J., concurring); The Pocket Veto Case , supra, at 689–690; Ex parte Grossman, 267 U. S. 87, 118–119 (1925); United States v. Midwest Oil Co., 236 U. S. 459, 472– 474 (1915); McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U. S. 1, 27 (1892); Mc- Culloch, supra; Stuart v. Laird, 1 Cranch 299 (1803).

These precedents show that this Court has treated practice as an important interpretive factor even when the nature or longevity of that practice is subject to dispute, and even when that practice began after the founding era. See Mistretta , supra, at 400–401 (“While these [practices] spawned spirited discussion and frequent criticism, . . . `traditional ways of conducting government . . . give meaning' to the Constitution” (quoting Youngstown, supra, at 610 (Frankfurter, J., concurring))); Regan, supra,

There is a great deal of history to consider here. Presidents have made recess appointments since the beginning of the Republic. Their frequency suggests that the Senate and President have recognized that recess appointments can be both necessary and appropriate in certain circumstances. We have not previously interpreted the Clause, and, when doing so for the first time in more than 200 years, we must hesitate to upset the compromises and working arrangements that the elected branches of Government themselves have reached.

The first question concerns the scope of the phrase “the recess of the Senate.” Art. II, § 2, cl. 3 (emphasis added). The Constitution provides for congressional elections every two years. And the 2-year life of each elected Congress typically consists of two formal 1-year sessions, each separated from the next by an “inter-session recess.” Congressional Research Service, H. Hogue, Recess Appointments: Frequently Asked Questions 2 (2013). The Senate or the House of Representatives announces an inter-session recess by approving a resolution stating that it will “adjourn sine die ,” i. e., without specifying a date to return (in which case Congress will reconvene when the next formal session is scheduled to begin).

The Senate and the House also take breaks in the midst of a session. The Senate or the House announces any such “intra-session recess” by adopting a resolution stating that it will “adjourn” to a fixed date, a few days or weeks or even months later. All agree that the phrase “the recess

In our view, the phrase “the recess” includes an intra-session recess of substantial length. Its words taken literally can refer to both types of recess. Founding-era dictionaries define the word “recess,” much as we do today, simply as “a period of cessation from usual work.” 13 Oxford English Dictionary 322–323 (2d ed. 1989) (hereinafter OED) (citing 18th- and 19th-century sources for that definition of “recess”); 2 N. Webster, An American Dictionary of the English Language (1828) (“[r]emission or suspension of business or procedure”); 2 S. Johnson, A Dictionary of the English Language 1602–1603 (4th ed. 1773) (hereinafter Johnson) (same). The Flounders themselves used the word to refer to intra-session, as well as to inter-session, breaks. See, e. g., 3 Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, p. 76 (M. Farrand rev. 1966) (hereinafter Farrand) (letter from George Washington to John Jay using “the recess” to refer to an intra-session break of the Constitutional Convention); id., at 191 (speech of Luther Martin with a similar usage); 1 T. Jef-ferson, A Manual of Parliamentary Practice § LI, p. 165 (2d ed. 1812) (describing a “recess by adjournment” which did not end a session).

We recognize that the word “the” in “ the recess” might suggest that the phrase refers to the single break separating formal sessions of Congress. That is because the word “the” frequently (but not always) indicates “a particular thing.” 2 Johnson 2003. But the word can also refer “to a term used generically or universally.” 17 OED 879. The Constitution, for example, directs the Senate to choose a President pro tempore “in the Absence of the Vice- President.” Art. I, § 3, cl. 5 (emphasis added). And the Federalist Papers refer to the chief magistrate of an ancient Achaean league who “administered the government in the recess of the Senate.” The Federalist No. 18, at 113 (J. Mad-ison) (emphasis added). Reading “the” generically in this

The constitutional text is thus ambiguous. And we believe the Clause's purpose demands the broader interpretation. The Clause gives the President authority to make appointments during “the recess of the Senate” so that the President can ensure the continued functioning of the Federal Government when the Senate is away. The Senate is equally away during both an inter-session and an intra-session recess, and its capacity to participate in the appointments process has nothing to do with the words it uses to signal its departure.

History also offers strong support for the broad interpretation. We concede that pre-Civil War history is not helpful. But it shows only that Congress generally took long breaks between sessions, while taking no significant intra-session breaks at all (five times it took a break of a week or so at Christmas). See Appendix A, infra. Obviously, if there are no significant intra-session recesses, there will be no intra-session recess appointments. In 1867 and 1868, Congress for the first time took substantial, nonholiday intra-session breaks, and President Andrew Johnson made dozens of recess appointments. The Federal Court of Claims upheld one of those specific appointments, writing “[w]e have no doubt that a vacancy occurring while the Senate was thus temporarily adjourned” during the “first session of the Fortieth Congress” was “legally filled by appointment of the President alone.” Gould v. United States, 19 Ct. Cl. 593, 595– 596 (1884) (emphasis added). Attorney General Evarts also issued three opinions concerning the constitutionality of

In all, between the founding and the Great Depression, Congress took substantial intra-session breaks (other than holiday breaks) in four years: 1867, 1868, 1921, and 1929. Appendix A, infra. And in each of those years the President made intra-session recess appointments. See App. to Brief for Petitioner 1a–11a.

Since 1929, and particularly since the end of World War II, Congress has shortened its inter-session breaks as it has taken longer and more frequent intra-session breaks; Presidents have correspondingly made more intra-session recess appointments. Indeed, if we include military appointments, Presidents have made thousands of intra-session recess appointments. Id., at 11a–64a. President Franklin Roosevelt, for example, commissioned Dwight Eisenhower as a permanent Major General during an intra-session recess; President Truman made Dean Acheson Under Secretary of State; and President George H. W. Bush reappointed Alan Greenspan as Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. Id., at 11a, 12a, 40a. Justice Scalia does not dispute any of these facts.

Not surprisingly, the publicly available opinions of Presidential legal advisers that we have found are nearly unanimous in determining that the Clause authorizes these appointments. In 1921, for example, Attorney General Daugherty advised President Harding that he could make intra-session recess appointments. He reasoned:

“If the President's power of appointment is to be defeated because the Senate takes an adjournment to a specified date, the painful and inevitable result will be measurably to prevent the exercise of governmental functions. I can not bring myself to believe that the framers of the Constitution ever intended such a catastrophe to happen.” 33 Op. Atty. Gen. 20, 23.

We have found memoranda offering similar advice to President Eisenhower and to every President from Carter to the present. See 36 Opinions of Office of Legal Counsel (Op. OLC) –––, ––– (2012), online at www.justice.gov/file/ 18326/download; 25 Op. OLC 182 (2001); 20 Op. OLC 124, 161 (1996); 16 Op. OLC 15 (1992); 13 Op. OLC 271 (1989); 6 Op. OLC 585, 586 (1982); 3 Op. OLC 314, 316 (1979); 41 Op. Atty. Gen. 463, 466 (1960).

We must note one contrary opinion authored by President Theodore Roosevelt's Attorney General Philander Knox. Knox advised the President that the Clause did not cover a 19-day intra-session Christmas recess. 23 Op. Atty. Gen. 599 (1901). But in doing so he relied heavily upon the use of the word “the,” a linguistic point that we do not find determinative. See supra, at 527–528. And Knox all but confessed that his interpretation ran contrary to the basic purpose of the Clause. For it would permit the Senate to adjourn for “several months,” to a fixed date, and thereby “seriously curtail the President's power of making recess appointments.” 23 Op. Atty. Gen., at 603. Moreover, only three days before Knox gave his opinion, the Solicitor of the Treasury came to the opposite conclusion. Reply Brief 7, n. 5. We therefore do not think Knox's isolated opinion can disturb the consensus advice within the Executive Branch taking the opposite position.

What about the Senate? Since Presidents began making intra-session recess appointments, individual Senators have taken differing views about the proper definition of “the recess.” See, e. g., 130 Cong. Rec. 23234 (1984) (resolution in-

Most notably, in 1905 the Senate Committee on the Judiciary objected strongly to President Theodore Roosevelt's use of the Clause to make more than 160 recess appointments during a “fictitious” inter-session recess. S. Rep. No. 4389, 58th Cong., 3d Sess., 2 (hereinafter 1905 Senate Report). At noon on December 7, 1903, the Senate President pro tempore had “declare[d]” a formal, “extraordinary session” of the Senate “adjourned without day,” and the next formal Senate session began immediately afterwards. 37 Cong. Rec. 544 (1903). President Roosevelt made over 160 recess appointments during the instantaneous inter-session interval. The Judiciary Committee, when stating its strong objection, de-fined “recess” in functional terms as

“the period of time when the Senate is not sitting in regular or extraordinary session as a branch of the Congress . . . ; when its members owe no duty of attendance; when its Chamber is empty; when, because of its absence, it can not receive communications from the President or participate as a body in making appointments.” 1905 Senate Report, at 2 (emphasis deleted).

That functional definition encompasses intra-session, as well as inter-session, recesses. Justice Scalia is right that

Similarly, in 1940 the Senate helped to enact a law regulat-ing the payment of recess appointees, and the Comptroller General of the United States has interpreted that law functionally. An earlier 1863 statute had denied pay to individuals appointed to fill up vacancies first arising prior to the beginning of a recess. The Senate Judiciary Committee then believed that those vacancies fell outside the scope of the Clause. See infra, at 548–549. In 1940, however, the Senate amended the law to permit many of those recess appointees to be paid. Act of July 11, 54 Stat. 751. Interpreting the amendments in 1948, the Comptroller General—who, unlike the Attorney General, is an “officer of the Legislative Branch,” Bowsher v. Synar , 478 U. S. 714, 731 (1986)—wrote:

“I think it is clear that [the Pay Act amendments'] primary purpose was to relieve `recess appointees' of the burden of serving without compensation during periods when the Senate is not actually sitting and is not available to give its advice and consent in respect to the appointment, irrespective of whether the recess of the Senate is attributable to a final adjournment sine die or to an adjournment to a specified date.” 28 Comp. Gen. 30, 37.

We recognize that the Senate cannot easily register opposition as a body to every governmental action that many, perhaps most, Senators oppose. But the Senate has not been silent or passive regarding the meaning of the Clause: A Senate committee did register opposition to President Theodore Roosevelt's use of the Clause, and the Senate as a

The upshot is that restricting the Clause to inter-session recesses would frustrate its purpose. It would make the President's recess-appointment power dependent on a formalistic distinction of Senate procedure. Moreover, the President has consistently and frequently interpreted the word “recess” to apply to intra-session recesses, and has acted on that interpretation. The Senate as a body has done nothing to deny the validity of this practice for at least three-quarters of a century. And three-quarters of a century of settled practice is long enough to entitle a practice to “great weight in a proper interpretation” of the constitutional provision. The Pocket Veto Case , 279 U. S., at 689.

We are aware of, but we are not persuaded by, three important arguments to the contrary. First, some argue that the Flounders would likely have intended the Clause to apply only to inter-session recesses, for they hardly knew any other. See, e. g., Brief for Originalist Scholars as Amici Cu-riae 27–29. Indeed, from the founding until the Civil War inter-session recesses were the only kind of significant recesses that Congress took. The problem with this argument, however, is that it does not fully describe the relevant founding intent. The question is not: Did the Flounders at the time think about intra-session recesses? Perhaps they did not. The question is: Did the Flounders intend to restrict the scope of the Clause to the form of congressional recess then prevalent, or did they intend a broader scope permitting the Clause to apply, where appropriate, to somewhat changed circumstances? The Flounders knew they

Second, some argue that the intra-session interpretation permits the President to make “illogic[ally]” long recess appointments. Brief for Respondent Noel Canning 13; post, at 577–578 (Scalia, J ., concurring in judgment). A recess appointment made between Congress' annual sessions would permit the appointee to serve for about a year, i. e., until the “end” of the “next” Senate “session.” Art. II, § 2, cl. 3. But an intra-session appointment made at the beginning or in the middle of a formal session could permit the appointee to serve for 1½ or almost 2 years (until the end of the following formal session).

We agree that the intra-session interpretation permits somewhat longer recess appointments, but we do not agree that this consequence is “illogical.” A President who makes a recess appointment will often also seek to make a regular appointment, nominating the appointee and securing ordinary Senate confirmation. And the Clause ensures that the President and Senate always have at least a full session to go through the nomination and confirmation process. That process may take several months. See O'Connell, Vacant Offices: Delays in Staffing Top Agency Positions, 82 S. Cal. L. Rev. 913, 967 (2009) (from 1987 to 2005 the nomination and confirmation process took an average of 236 days for noncabinet agency heads). A recess appointment that lasts somewhat longer than a year will ensure the President the continued assistance of subordinates that the Clause permits him to obtain while he and the Senate select a regular appointee. An appointment should last until the Senate has “an opportu-

Third, the Court of Appeals believed that application of the Clause to intra-session recesses would introduce “vagueness” into a Clause that was otherwise clear. 705 F. 3d, at 504. One can find problems of uncertainty, however, either way. In 1867, for example, President Andrew Johnson called a special session of Congress, which took place during a lengthy intra-session recess. Consider the period of time that fell just after the conclusion of that special session. Did that period remain an intra-session recess, or did it become an inter-session recess? Historians disagree about the answer. Compare Hartnett, 26 Cardozo L. Rev., at 408–409, with Brief for Constitutional Law Scholars as Amici Curiae 23–24.

Or suppose that Congress adjourns sine die, but it does so conditionally, so that the leadership can call the members back into session when “the public interest shall warrant it.” E. g., 155 Cong. Rec. 33429 (2009); 152 Cong. Rec. 23731– 23732 (2006); 150 Cong. Rec. 25925–25926 (2004). If the Senate majority leader were to reconvene the Senate, how would we characterize the preceding recess? Is it still intersession? On the narrower interpretation the label matters; on the broader it does not.

The greater interpretive problem is determining how long a recess must be in order to fall within the Clause. Is a break of a week, or a day, or an hour too short to count as a “recess”? The Clause itself does not say. And Justice Scalia claims that this silence itself shows that the Framers intended the Clause to apply only to an inter-session recess. Post, at 580.

We disagree. For one thing, the most likely reason the Framers did not place a textual floor underneath the word “recess” is that they did not foresee the need for one. They might have expected that the Senate would meet for a single

Moreover, the lack of a textual floor raises a problem that plagues both interpretations— Justice Scalia's and ours. Today a brief inter-session recess is just as possible as a brief intra-session recess. And though Justice Scalia says that the “notion that the Constitution empowers the President to make unilateral appointments every time the Senate takes a half-hour lunch break is so absurd as to be self-refuting ,” he must immediately concede (in a footnote) that the President “can make recess appointments during any break between sessions, no matter how short.” Post, at 578, 583, n. 4 (emphasis added).

Even the Solicitor General, arguing for a broader interpretation, acknowledges that there is a lower limit applicable to both kinds of recess. He argues that the lower limit should be three days by analogy to the Adjournments Clause of the Constitution. Tr. of Oral Arg. 11. That Clause says: “Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days.” Art. I, § 5, cl. 4.

We agree with the Solicitor General that a 3-day recess would be too short. (Under Senate practice, “Sunday is generally not considered a day,” and so is not counted for purposes of the Adjournments Clause. S. Doc. No. 101–28, F. Riddick & A. Frumin, Riddick's Senate Procedure: Precedents and Practices 1265 (hereinafter Riddick's).) The Adjournments Clause reflects the fact that a 3-day break is not a significant interruption of legislative business. As the So-

That is not to say that the President may make recess appointments during any recess that is “more than three days.” Art. I, § 5, cl. 4. The Recess Appointments Clause seeks to permit the Executive Branch to function smoothly when Congress is unavailable. And though Congress has taken short breaks for almost 200 years, and there have been many thousands of recess appointments in that time, we have not found a single example of a recess appointment made during an intra-session recess that was shorter than 10 days. Nor has the Solicitor General. Reply Brief 23. Indeed, the Office of Legal Counsel once informally advised against making a recess appointment during a 6-day intra-session recess. 3 Op. OLC, at 315–316. The lack of examples suggests that the recess-appointment power is not needed in that context. (The length of a recess is “ `ordinarily calculated by counting the calendar days running from the day after the recess begins and including the day the recess ends.' ” 36 Op. OLC, at –––, n. 1.)

There are a few historical examples of recess appointments made during inter-session recesses shorter than 10 days. We have already discussed President Theodore Roosevelt's appointments during the instantaneous, “fictitious” recess. President Truman also made a recess appointment to the Civil Aeronautics Board during a 3-day inter-session recess. Hogue, Recess Appointments: Frequently Asked Questions, at 5–6. President Taft made a few appointments during a 9-day recess following his inauguration, and President Lyndon Johnson made several appointments during an 8-day recess several weeks after assuming office. Hogue, The Law: Recess Appointments to Article III Courts, 34 Presidential Studies Q. 656, 671 (2004); 106 S. Exec. J. 2 (1964); 40 S. Exec.

In sum, we conclude that the phrase “the recess” applies to both intra-session and inter-session recesses. If a Senate recess is so short that it does not require the consent of the House, it is too short to trigger the Recess Appointments Clause. See Art. I, § 5, cl. 4. And a recess lasting less than 10 days is presumptively too short as well.

The second question concerns the scope of the phrase “vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate.” Art. II, § 2, cl. 3 (emphasis added). All agree that the phrase applies to vacancies that initially occur during a recess. But does it also apply to vacancies that initially occur before a recess and continue to exist during the recess? In our view the phrase applies to both kinds of vacancy.

We believe that the Clause's language, read literally, permits, though it does not naturally favor, our broader interpretation. We concede that the most natural meaning of “happens” as applied to a “vacancy” (at least to a modern ear) is that the vacancy “happens” when it initially occurs. See 1 Johnson 913 (defining “happen” in relevant part as meaning “[t]o fall out; to chance; to come to pass”). But that is not the only possible way to use the word.

Similarly, when Attorney General William Wirt advised President Monroe to follow the broader interpretation, he wrote that the “expression seems not perfectly clear. It may mean `happen to take place:' that is, ` to originate ,' ” or it “may mean, also, without violence to the sense, `happen to exist.' ” 1 Op. Atty. Gen. 631, 631–632 (1823). The broader interpretation, he added, is “most accordant with” the Constitution's “reason and spirit.” Id., at 632.

We can still understand this earlier use of “happen” if we think of it used together with another word that, like “vacancy,” can refer to a continuing state, say, a financial crisis. A statute that gives the President authority to act in respect to “any financial crisis that may happen during his term” can easily be interpreted to include crises that arise before, and continue during, that term. Perhaps that

In any event, the linguistic question here is not whether the phrase can be, but whether it must be, read more narrowly. The question is whether the Clause is ambiguous. The Pocket Veto Case , 279 U. S., at 690. And the broader reading, we believe, is at least a permissible reading of a “ `doubtful' ” phrase. Ibid. We consequently go on to consider the Clause's purpose and historical practice.

The Clause's purpose strongly supports the broader interpretation. That purpose is to permit the President to obtain the assistance of subordinate officers when the Senate, due to its recess, cannot confirm them. Attorney General Wirt clearly described how the narrower interpretation would undermine this purpose:

“Put the case of a vacancy occurring in an office, held in a distant part of the country, on the last day of the Senate's session. Before the vacancy is made known to the President, the Senate rises. The office may be an important one; the vacancy may paralyze a whole line of action in some essential branch of our internal police; the public interests may imperiously demand that it shall be immediately filled. But the vacancy happened to occur during the session of the Senate; and if the President's power is to be limited to such vacancies only as happen to occur during the recess of the Senate, the vacancy in the case put must continue, however ruinous the consequences may be to the public.” 1 Op. Atty. Gen., at 632.

Examples are not difficult to imagine: An ambassadorial post falls vacant too soon before the recess begins for the President to appoint a replacement; the Senate rejects a Presi-

We do not agree with Justice Scalia's suggestion that the Framers would have accepted the catastrophe envisioned by Wirt because Congress can always provide for acting of-fcers, see 5 U. S. C. § 3345, and the President can always convene a special session of Congress, see U. S. Const., Art. II, § 3. Acting officers may have less authority than Presidential appointments. 6 Op. OLC 119, 121 (1982). Moreover, to rely on acting officers would lessen the President's ability to staff the Executive Branch with people of his own choosing, and thereby limit the President's control and political accountability. Cf. Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Bd., 561 U. S. 477, 497–498 (2010). Special sessions are burdensome (and would have been especially so at the time of the founding). The point of the Recess Appointments Clause was to avoid reliance on these inadequate expedients.

At the same time, we recognize one important purpose-related consideration that argues in the opposite direction. A broad interpretation might permit a President to avoid Senate confirmations as a matter of course. If the Clause gives the President the power to “fill up all vacancies” that occur before, and continue to exist during, the Senate's recess, a President might not submit any nominations to the Senate. He might simply wait for a recess and then provide all potential nominees with recess appointments. He might

Wirt thought considerations of character and politics would prevent Presidents from abusing the Clause in this way. 1 Op. Atty. Gen., at 634. He might have added that such temptations should not often arise. It is often less desirable for a President to make a recess appointment. A recess appointee only serves a limited term. That, combined with the lack of Senate approval, may diminish the recess appointee's ability, as a practical matter, to get a controversial job done. And even where the President and Senate are at odds over politically sensitive appointments, compromise is normally possible. Indeed, the 1940 Pay Act amendments represent a general compromise, for they foresee payment of salaries to recess appointees where vacancies occur before the recess began but not too long before (namely, within 30 days before). 5 U. S. C. § 5503(a)(1); see infra, at 549. Moreover, the Senate, like the President, has institutional “resources,” including political resources, “available to protect and assert its interests.” Goldwater v. Carter, 444 U. S. 996, 1004 (1979) (Rehnquist, J., concurring in judgment to grant certiorari, vacate judgment, and remand). In an unusual instance, where a matter is important enough to the Senate, that body can remain in session, preventing recess appointments by refusing to take a recess. See Part V , infra. In any event, the Executive Branch has adhered to the broader interpretation for two centuries, and Senate confirmation has always remained the norm for off-cers that require it.

While we concede that both interpretations carry with them some risk of undesirable consequences, we believe the narrower interpretation risks undermining constitutionally conferred powers more seriously and more often. It would prevent the President from making any recess appointment that arose before a recess, no matter who the official, no matter how dire the need, no matter how uncontroversial the

Historical practice over the past 200 years strongly flavors the broader interpretation. The tradition of applying the Clause to pre-recess vacancies dates at least to President James Madison. There is no undisputed record of Presidents George Washington, John Adams, or Thomas Jefferson making such an appointment, though the Solicitor General believes he has found records showing that Presidents Washington and Jefferson did so. We know that Edmund Randolph, Washington's Attorney General, favored a narrow reading of the Clause. Randolph believed that the “Spirit of the Constitution flavors the participation of the Senate in all appointments,” though he did not address—let alone answer—the powerful purposive and structural arguments subsequently made by Attorney General Wirt. See Edmund Randolph's Opinion on Recess Appointments (July 7, 1792), in 24 Papers of Thomas Jefferson 165, 166 (J. Catanzar-iti ed. 1990).

President Adams seemed to endorse the broader view of the Clause in writing, though we are not aware of any appointments he made in keeping with that view. See Letter to J. McHenry (Apr. 16, 1799), in 8 Works of John Adams 632– 633 (C. Adams ed. 1853). His Attorney General, Charles Lee, later informed Jefferson that, in the Adams administration, “whenever an office became vacant so short a time before Congress rose, as not to give an opportunity of enquir-ing for a proper character, they let it lie always till recess.” 36 Papers of Thomas Jefferson 433. We know that President Jefferson thought that the broad interpretation was linguistically supportable, though his actual practice is not clear. But the evidence suggests that James Madison—as familiar as anyone with the workings of the Constitutional Convention—appointed Theodore Gaillard to replace a dis-

The next President, James Monroe, received and presumably acted upon Attorney General Wirt's advice, namely, that “all vacancies which, from any casualty, happen to exist at a time when the Senate cannot be consulted as to filling them, may be temporarily filled by the President.” 1 Op. Atty. Gen., at 633. Nearly every subsequent Attorney General to consider the question throughout the Nation's history has thought the same. E. g., 2 Op. Atty. Gen. 525, 528 (1832); 7 Op. Atty. Gen. 186, 223 (1855); 10 Op. Atty. Gen. 356, 356–357 (1862); 12 Op. Atty. Gen. 32, 33 (1866); 12 Op. Atty. Gen., at 452; 14 Op. Atty. Gen. 562, 564 (1875); 15 Op. Atty. Gen. 207 (1877); 16 Op. Atty. Gen. 522, 524 (1880); 17 Op. Atty. Gen. 521 (1883); 18 Op. Atty. Gen. 29, 29–30 (1884); 19 Op. Atty. Gen. 261, 262 (1889); 26 Op. Atty. Gen. 234, 235–236 (1907); 30 Op. Atty. Gen. 314, 315 (1914); 41 Op. Atty. Gen., at 465; 3 Op. OLC 314; 6 Op. OLC, at 586; 20 Op. OLC, at 161; 36 Op. OLC –––. Indeed, as early as 1862, Attorney

This power is important. The Congressional Research Service is “unaware of any official source of information tracking the dates of vacancies in federal offices.” The Noel Canning Decision 3, n. 6. Nonetheless, we have enough information to believe that the Presidents since Madison have made many recess appointments filling vacancies that initially occurred prior to a recess. As we have just said, nearly every 19th- and 20th-century Attorney General expressing a view on the matter has agreed with William Wirt, and Presidents tend to follow the legal advice of their chief legal officers. Moreover, the Solicitor General has compiled a list of 102 (mostly uncontested) recess appointments made by Presidents going back to the founding. App. to Brief for Petitioner 65a–89a. Given the difficulty of finding accurate information about vacancy dates, that list is undoubtedly far smaller than the actual number. No one disputes that every President since James Buchanan has made recess appointments to pre-existing vacancies.

Common sense also suggests that many recess appointees filled vacancies that arose before the recess began. We have compared the list of intra-session recess appointments in the Solicitor General's brief with the chart of congressional recesses. Where a specific date of appointment can be ascertained, more than half of those intra-session appointments were made within two weeks of the beginning of a recess. That short window strongly suggests that many of the vacancies initially arose prior to the recess. See App. to Brief for Petitioner 1a–64a; Appendix A, infra. Thus, it is not surprising that the Congressional Research Service, after examining the vacancy dates associated with a random sam-

Did the Senate object? Early on, there was some sporadic disagreement with the broad interpretation. In 1814 Senator Gore said that if “the vacancy happen at another time, it is not the case described by the Constitution.” 26 Annals of Cong. 653. In 1822 a Senate committee, while focusing on the President's power to fill a new vacancy created by statute, used language to the same effect. 38 id., at 489, 500. And early Congresses enacted statutes authorizing certain recess appointments, see post, at 598, a fact that may or may not suggest they accepted the narrower interpretation of the Clause. Most of those statutes—including the one passed by the First Congress—authorized appointments to newly created offices, and may have been addressed to the separate question of whether new offices are vacancies within the meaning of the Clause. See Letter from Alexander Hamilton to James McHenry (May 3, 1799), in 23 Papers of Alexander Hamilton 94 (H. Syrett ed. 1976) (“Vacancy is a relative term, and presupposes that the Office has been once filled”); Reply Brief 17. In any event, by 1862 Attorney General Bates could still refer to “the unbroken acquies-

Then in 1863 the Senate Judiciary Committee disagreed with the broad interpretation. It issued a report concluding that a vacancy “must have its inceptive point after one session has closed and before another session has begun.” S. Rep. No. 80, 37th Cong., 3d Sess., 3. And the Senate then passed the Pay Act, which provided that “no money shall be paid . . . as a salary, to any person appointed during the recess of the Senate, to fill a vacancy . . . which . . . existed while the Senate was in session.” Act of Feb. 9, 1863, § 2, 12 Stat. 646. Relying upon the floor statement of a single Senator, Justice Scalia suggests that the passage of the Pay Act indicates that the Senate as a whole endorsed the position in the 1863 Report. But the circumstances are more equivocal. During the floor debate on the bill, not a single Senator referred to the Report. Cong. Globe, 37th Cong., 3d Sess., 564–565 (1863). Indeed, Senator Trumbull, who introduced the Pay Act, acknowledged that there was disagreement about the underlying constitutional question. Id., at 565 (“[S]ome other persons think he has that power”). Further, if a majority of the Senate had believed appointments to pre-recess vacancies were unconstitutional, it could have attempted to do far more than temporarily dock the appointees' pay. Cf. Tenure of Office Act of 1867, § 5, 14 Stat. 431 (making it a federal crime for “any person” to “accept any appointment” in certain circumstances).

In any event, the Senate subsequently abandoned its hostility. In the debate preceding the 1905 Senate Report regarding President Roosevelt's “constructive” recess appointments, Senator Tillman—who chaired the Committee that authored the 1905 Report—brought up the 1863 Report, and another Senator responded: “Whatever that report may have said in 1863, I do not think that has been the view the Senate has taken” of the issue. 38 Cong. Rec. 1606 (1904) (Sen. Platt). Senator Tillman then agreed that “the Senate

In 1916 the Senate debated whether to pay a recess appointee who had filled a pre-recess vacancy and had not subsequently been confirmed. Both Senators to address the question—one on each side of the payment debate—agreed that the President had the constitutional power to make the appointment, and the Senate voted to pay the appointee for his service. 53 Cong. Rec. 4291–4299; 39 Stat. 818–819. In 1927 the Comptroller General, a legislative officer, wrote that “there is no question but that the President has authority to make a recess appointment to fill any vacancy,” including those that “existed while the Senate was in session.” 7 Comp. Gen. 10, 11 (emphasis added). Meanwhile, Presidents continued to make appointments to pre-recess vacancies. The Solicitor General has identified 40 between 1863 and 1940, but that number is clearly not comprehensive. See, e. g., 32 Op. Atty. Gen. 271, 271–272 (1920) (listing five appointments that are not in the Solicitor General's appendix); Recess Appointments, Washington Post, July 7, 1880, p. 1 (noting that President Hayes had made “quite a number of appointments” to pre-recess vacancies).

Then in 1940 Congress amended the Pay Act to authorize salary payments (with some exceptions) where (1) the “vacancy arose within thirty days prior to the termination of the session,” (2) “at the termination of the session” a nomination was “pending,” or (3) a nominee was “rejected by the Senate within thirty days prior to the termination of the session.” Act of July 11, 54 Stat. 751 (codified, as amended, at 5 U. S. C. § 5503). All three circumstances concern a vacancy that did not initially occur during a recess but hap-

The upshot is that the President has consistently and frequently interpreted the Recess Appointments Clause to apply to vacancies that initially occur before, but continue to exist during, a recess of the Senate. The Senate as a body has not countered this practice for nearly three-quarters of a century, perhaps longer. See A. Amar, America's Unwritten Constitution 576–577, n. 16 (2012) (for nearly 200 years “the overwhelming mass of actual practice” supports the President's interpretation); Mistretta, 488 U. S., at 401 (a “200-year tradition” can “ `give meaning' to the Constitution” (quoting Youngstown, 343 U. S., at 610 (Frankfurter, J., concurring))). The tradition is long enough to entitle the practice “to great regard in determining the true construction” of the constitutional provision. The Pocket Veto Case , 279 U. S., at 690. And we are reluctant to upset this traditional practice where doing so would seriously shrink the authority that Presidents have believed existed and have exercised for so long.

In light of some linguistic ambiguity, the basic purpose of the Clause, and the historical practice we have described, we conclude that the phrase “all vacancies” includes vacancies that come into existence while the Senate is in session.

V

The third question concerns the calculation of the length of the Senate's “recess.” On December 17, 2011, the Senate by unanimous consent adopted a resolution to convene “pro forma session[s]” only, with “no business . . . transacted,” on every Tuesday and Friday from December 20, 2011, through January 20, 2012. 2011 S. J. 923. At the end of each pro forma session, the Senate would “adjourn until” the following pro forma session. Ibid. During that period,

The President made the recess appointments before us on January 4, 2012, in between the January 3 and the January 6 pro forma sessions. We must determine the significance of these sessions—that is, whether, for purposes of the Clause, we should treat them as periods when the Senate was in session or as periods when it was in recess. If the former, the period between January 3 and January 6 was a 3-day recess, which is too short to trigger the President's recess-appointment power, see supra, at 536–538. If the latter, however, then the 3-day period was part of a much longer recess during which the President did have the power to make recess appointments, see ibid.

The Solicitor General argues that we must treat the pro forma sessions as periods of recess. He says that these “sessions” were sessions in name only because the Senate was in recess as a functional matter. The Senate, he con-tends, remained in a single, unbroken recess from January 3, when the second session of the 112th Congress began by operation of the Twentieth Amendment, until January 23, when the Senate reconvened to do regular business.

In our view, however, the pro forma sessions count as sessions, not as periods of recess. We hold that, for purposes of the Recess Appointments Clause, the Senate is in session when it says it is, provided that, under its own rules, it retains the capacity to transact Senate business. The Senate met that standard here.

The standard we apply is consistent with the Constitution's broad delegation of authority to the Senate to determine how and when to conduct its business. The Constitution explicitly empowers the Senate to “determine the Rules of its Proceedings.” Art. I, § 5, cl. 2. And we have

In addition, the Constitution provides the Senate with extensive control over its schedule. There are only limited exceptions. See Amdt. 20, § 2 (Congress must meet once a year on January 3, unless it specifies another day by law); Art. II, § 3 (Senate must meet if the President calls it into special session); Art. I, § 5, cl. 4 (neither House may adjourn for more than three days without consent of the other). See also Art. II, § 3 (“[I]n Case of Disagreement between [the Houses], with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, [the President] may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper”). The Constitution thus gives the Senate wide latitude to determine whether and when to have a session, as well as how to conduct the session. This suggests that the Senate's determination about what constitutes a session should merit great respect.

Furthermore, this Court's precedents refect the breadth of the power constitutionally delegated to the Senate. We generally take at face value the Senate's own report of its actions. When, for example, “the presiding officers” of the House and Senate sign an enrolled bill (and the President “approve[s]” it), “its authentication as a bill that has passed Congress should be deemed complete and unimpeachable.” Marshall Field & Co. v. Clark, 143 U. S. 649, 672 (1892). By the same principle, when the Journal of the Senate indicates that a quorum was present, under a valid Senate rule, at the time the Senate passed a bill, we will not consider an argument that a quorum was not, in fact, present. Ballin, supra, at 9. The Constitution requires the Senate to keep its Journal, Art. I, § 5, cl. 3 (“Each House shall keep a Journal

For these reasons, we conclude that we must give great weight to the Senate's own determination of when it is and when it is not in session. But our deference to the Senate cannot be absolute. When the Senate is without the capacity to act, under its own rules, it is not in session even if it so declares. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 69 (acknowledgment by counsel for amici Senators that if the Senate had left the Capitol and “effectively given up . . . the business of legislat-ing” then it might be in recess, even if it said it was not). In that circumstance, the Senate is not simply unlikely or unwilling to act upon nominations of the President. It is unable to do so. The purpose of the Clause is to ensure the continued functioning of the Federal Government while the Senate is unavailable. See supra, at 522–524. This purpose would count for little were we to treat the Senate as though it were in session even when it lacks the ability to provide its “Advice and Consent.” Art. II, § 2, cl. 2. Accordingly, we conclude that when the Senate declares that it is in session and possesses the capacity, under its own rules, to conduct business, it is in session for purposes of the Clause.

Applying this standard, we find that the pro forma sessions were sessions for purposes of the Clause. First, the Senate said it was in session. The Journal of the Senate and the Congressional Record indicate that the Senate convened for a series of twice-weekly “sessions” from December 20 through January 20. 2011 S. J. 923–924; 158 Cong. Rec. 1, 3, 9, 16, 26, 133. (The Journal of the Senate for 2012 has not yet been published.) And these reports of the Senate “must be assumed to speak the truth.” Ballin, supra, at 4.

Second, the Senate's rules make clear that during its pro forma sessions, despite its resolution that it would conduct no business, the Senate retained the power to conduct business. During any pro forma session, the Senate could have conducted business simply by passing a unanimous consent

By way of contrast, we do not see how the Senate could conduct business during a recess. It could terminate the recess and then, when in session, pass a bill. But in that case, of course, the Senate would no longer be in recess. It would be in session. And that is the crucial point. Senate rules make clear that, once in session, the Senate can act even if it has earlier said that it would not.

The Solicitor General argues that more is required. He contends that what counts is not the Senate's capacity to conduct business but what the Senate actually does (or here, did) during its pro forma sessions. And he looks for support to the functional definition of “recess” set forth in the 1905 Report discussed above. See supra, at 531–532. That Report describes a “recess” of the Senate as

“the period of time . . . when its members owe no duty of attendance; when its Chamber is empty; when, because of its absence, it can not receive communications from the President or participate as a body in making appointments.” 1905 Senate Report, at 2.

Even were we, for argument's sake, to accept all of these criteria as authoritative, they would here be met. Taking the last criterion first, could the Senate, during its pro forma

Could the Senate “receive communications from the President”? It could. The Congressional Record indicates that the Senate “received” a message from the President on January 12, during a 3-day adjournment between two pro forma sessions. See 158 Cong. Rec. 159. If the Senate could receive Presidential messages between two pro forma sessions, it could receive them during a pro forma session.

Was the Senate's Chamber “empty”? It was not. By its official rules, the Senate operates under the presumption that a quorum is present until a present Senator suggests the absence of a quorum, Riddick's 1041–1042, and nothing in the Journal of the Senate or the Congressional Record reflects any such suggestion.

Did Senators “owe [a] duty of attendance”? They did. The Senate's rules dictate that Senators are under a duty to attend every session. See id., at 214; Standing Rule of the Senate VI(2), S. Doc. No. 112–1, p. 5 (2011) (“No Senator shall absent himself from the service of the Senate without leave”). Nothing excused the Senators from this duty during the Senate's pro forma sessions. If any present Senator had raised a question as to the presence of a quorum, and by roll call it had become clear that a quorum was missing, the Senators in attendance could have directed the Sergeant at Arms to bring in the missing Senators. Rule VI(4).

The Solicitor General asks us to engage in a more realistic appraisal of what the Senate actually did. He argues that, during the relevant pro forma sessions, business was not in fact conducted; messages from the President could not be received in any meaningful way because they could not be placed before the Senate; the Senate Chamber was, according to C–SPAN coverage, almost empty; and in practice attendance was not required. See Brief for Petitioner 48–49, 54–55.

Finally, the Solicitor General warns that our holding may “ `disrup[t] the proper balance between the coordinate branches by preventing the Executive Branch from accomplishing its constitutionally assigned functions.' ” Brief for Petitioner 64 (quoting Morrison v. Olson, 487 U. S. 654, 695 (1988); alteration in original). We do not see, however, how our holding could significantly alter the constitutional balance. Most appointments are not controversial and do not produce friction between the branches. Where political controversy is serious, the Senate unquestionably has other methods of preventing recess appointments. As the Solicitor General concedes, the Senate could preclude the President from making recess appointments by holding a series of twice-a-week ordinary (not pro forma) sessions. And the nature of the business conducted at those ordinary sessions—whether, for example, Senators must vote on nominations, or may return to their home States to meet with their constituents—is a matter for the Senate to decide. The Constitution also gives the President (if he has enough allies in Congress) a way to force a recess. Art. II, § 3 (“[I]n Case of Disagreement between [the Houses], with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, [the President] may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper”). Moreover, the Presi-

Regardless, the Recess Appointments Clause is not designed to overcome serious institutional friction. It simply provides a subsidiary method for appointing officials when the Senate is away during a recess. Here, as in other contexts, friction between the branches is an inevitable consequence of our constitutional structure. See Myers, 272 U. S., at 293 (Brandeis, J., dissenting). That structure foresees resolution not only through judicial interpretation and compromise among the branches but also by the ballot box.

The Recess Appointments Clause responds to a structural difference between the Executive and Legislative Branches: The Executive Branch is perpetually in operation, while the Legislature only acts in intervals separated by recesses. The purpose of the Clause is to allow the Executive to continue operating while the Senate is unavailable. We believe that the Clause's text, standing alone, is ambiguous. It does not resolve whether the President may make appointments during intra-session recesses, or whether he may fill pre-recess vacancies. But the broader reading better serves the Clause's structural function. Moreover, that broader reading is reinforced by centuries of history, which we are hesitant to disturb. We thus hold that the Constitution empowers the President to fill any existing vacancy during any recess—intra-session or inter-session—of sufficient length.

Justice Scalia would render illegitimate thousands of recess appointments reaching all the way back to the founding era. More than that: Calling the Clause an “anachronism,” he would basically read it out of the Constitution. Post, at 579. He performs this act of judicial excision in the name of liberty. We fail to see how excising the Recess Appointments Clause preserves freedom. In fact, Alexander Hamil-

Appendix A to opinion of the Court

ton observed in the very first Federalist Paper that “the vi-gour of government is essential to the security of liberty.” The Federalist No. 1, at 5. And the Framers included the Recess Appointments Clause to preserve the “vigour of government” at times when an important organ of Government, the United States Senate, is in recess. Justice Scalia's interpretation of the Clause would defeat the power of the Clause to achieve that objective.

The foregoing discussion should refute Justice Scalia's claim that we have “embrace[d]” an “adverse-possession theory of executive power.” Post, at 615. Instead, as in all cases, we interpret the Constitution in light of its text, purposes, and “our whole experience” as a Nation. Missouri v. Holland, 252 U. S. 416, 433 (1920). And we look to the actual practice of Government to inform our interpretation.

Given our answer to the last question before us, we conclude that the Recess Appointments Clause does not give the President the constitutional authority to make the appointments here at issue. Because the Court of Appeals reached the same ultimate conclusion (though for reasons we reject), its judgment is affirmed.

It is so ordered.

APPENDIXES

A

The following table contains the dates of all the intra-session and inter-session recesses that Congress has taken since the founding. The information (including the end-notes) is taken from 2011–2012 Official Congressional Directory, 112th Cong., 522–539.

SESSIONS OF CONGRESS, 1st–112th CONGRESSES, 1789–2011 Con- Ses- Convening Adjournment Length Recesses2 gress sion Date Date days1 in Senate House of 1st 1 Mar. 4, 1789 Sept. 29, 1789 210 Representatives 2 3 Jan. 4, 1790 Dec. 6, 1790 Aug. 12, 1790 Mar. 3, 1791 221 88

Appendix A to opinion of the Court

Recesses2

Length

Con- Ses- Convening Adjournment

in

gress sion Date Date Senate House of

days1

Representatives

2d S Mar. 4, 1791 Mar. 4, 1791 1

1 Oct. 24, 1791 May 8, 1792 197 2 Nov. 5, 1792 Mar. 2, 1793 119 3d S Mar. 4, 1793 Mar. 4, 1793 1 1 Dec. 2, 1793 June 9, 1794 190 2 Nov. 3, 1794 Mar. 3, 1795 121 4th S June 8, 1795 June 26, 1795 19 1 Dec. 7, 1795 June 1, 1796 177 2 Dec. 5, 1796 Mar. 3, 1797 89 5th S Mar. 4, 1797 Mar. 4, 1797 1 1–E May 15, 1797 July 10, 1797 57 S July 17, 1798 July 19, 1798 3 2 Nov. 13, 1797 July 16, 1798 246 3 Dec. 3, 1798 Mar. 3, 1799 91 6th 1 Dec. 2, 1799 May 14, 1800 164 2 Nov. 17, 1800 Mar. 3, 1801 107 Dec. 23–Dec. 30, 1800 Dec. 23–Dec. 30, 1800 7th S Mar. 4, 1801 Mar. 5, 1801 2 1 Dec. 7, 1801 May 3, 1802 148 2 Dec. 6, 1802 Mar. 3, 1803 88 8th 1–E Oct. 17, 1803 Mar. 27, 1804 163 2 Nov. 5, 1804 Mar. 3, 1805 119 9th 1 Dec. 2, 1805 Apr. 21, 1806 141 2 Dec. 1, 1806 Mar. 3, 1807 93 10th 1–E Oct. 26, 1807 Apr. 25, 1808 182 2 Nov. 7, 1808 Mar. 3, 1809 117 11th S Mar. 4, 1809 Mar. 7, 1809 4 1 May 22, 1809 June 28, 1809 38 2 Nov . 27, 1809 May 1, 1810 156 3 Dec. 3, 1810 Mar. 3, 1811 91 12th 1–E Nov. 4, 1811 July 6, 1812 245 2 Nov. 2, 1812 Mar. 3, 1813 122 13th 1 May 24, 1813 Aug. 2, 1813 71 2 Dec. 6, 1813 Apr. 18, 1814 134 3–E Sept. 19, 1814 Mar. 3, 1815 166 14th 1 Dec. 4, 1815 Apr. 30, 1816 148 2 Dec. 2, 1816 Mar. 3, 1817 92 15th S Mar. 4, 1817 Mar. 6, 1817 3 1 Dec. 1, 1817 Apr. 20, 1818 141 Dec. 24–Dec. 29, 1817 Dec. 24–Dec. 29, 1817 2 Nov. 16, 1818 Mar. 3, 1819 108 16th 1 Dec. 6, 1819 May 15, 1820 162 2 Nov. 13, 1820 Mar. 3, 1821 111 17th 1 Dec. 3, 1821 May 8, 1822 157 2 Dec. 2, 1822 Mar. 3, 1823 92 18th 1 Dec. 1, 1823 May 27, 1824 178 2 Dec. 6, 1824 Mar. 3, 1825 88 19th S Mar. 4, 1825 Mar. 9, 1825 6 1 Dec. 5, 1825 May 22, 1826 169 2 Dec. 4, 1826 Mar. 3, 1827 90 20th 1 Dec. 3, 1827 May 26, 1828 175 2 Dec. 1, 1828 Mar. 3, 1829 93 Dec. 24–Dec. 29, 1828 Dec. 24–Dec. 29, 1828 21st S Mar. 4, 1829 Mar. 17, 1829 14 1 Dec. 7, 1829 May 31, 1830 176 2 Dec. 6, 1830 Mar. 3, 1831 88 22d 1 Dec. 5, 1831 July 16, 1832 225 2 Dec. 3, 1832 Mar. 2, 1833 91 23d 1 Dec. 2, 1833 June 30, 1834 211 2 Dec. 1, 1834 Mar. 3, 1835 93 24th 1 Dec. 7, 1835 July 4, 1836 211 2 Dec. 5, 1836 Mar. 3, 1837 89 25th S Mar. 4, 1837 Mar. 10, 1837 7 1–E Sept. 4, 1837 Oct. 16, 1837 43 2 Dec. 4, 1837 July 9, 1838 218 3 Dec. 3, 1838 Mar. 3, 1839 91 26th 1 Dec. 2, 1839 July 21, 1840 233 2 Dec. 7, 1840 Mar. 3, 1841 87 27th S Mar. 4, 1841 Mar. 15, 1841 12 1–E May 31, 1841 Sept. 13, 1841 106 2 Dec. 6, 1841 Aug. 31, 1842 269 3 Dec. 5, 1842 Mar. 3, 1843 89 28th 1 Dec. 4, 1843 June 17, 1844 196 2 Dec. 2, 1844 Mar. 3, 1845 92 29th S Mar. 4, 1845 Mar. 20, 1845 17 1 Dec. 1, 1845 Aug. 10, 1846 253 2 Dec. 7, 1846 Mar. 3, 1847 87 30th 1 Dec. 6, 1847 Aug. 14, 1848 254 2 Dec. 4, 1848 Mar. 3, 1849 90 31st S Mar. 5, 1849 Mar. 23, 1849 19

Appendix A to opinion of the Court

Recesses2

Length

Con- Ses- Convening Adjournment

in

gress sion Date Date Senate House of

days1

Representatives

1 Dec. 3, 1849 Sept. 30, 1850 302 2 Dec. 2, 1850 Mar. 3, 1851 92 32d S Mar. 4, 1851 Mar. 13, 1851 10 1 Dec. 1, 1851 Aug. 31, 1852 275 2 Dec. 6, 1852 Mar. 3, 1853 88 33d S Mar. 4, 1853 Apr. 11, 1853 39 1 Dec. 5, 1853 Aug. 7, 1854 246 2 Dec. 4, 1854 Mar. 3, 1855 90 34th 1 Dec. 3, 1855 Aug. 18, 1856 260 2–E Aug. 21, 1856 Aug. 30, 1856 10 3 Dec. 1, 1856 Mar. 3, 1857 93 35th S Mar. 4, 1857 Mar. 14, 1857 11 1 Dec. 7, 1857 June 14, 1858 189 Dec. 23, 1857– Jan. 4, Dec. 23, 1857– Jan. 4,

1858 1858

S June 15, 1858 June 16, 1858 2 2 Dec. 6, 1858 Mar. 3, 1859 88 Dec. 23, 1858– Jan. 4, Dec. 23, 1858– Jan. 4,

1859 1859

36th S Mar. 4, 1859 Mar. 10, 1859 7

1 Dec. 5, 1859 June 25, 1860 202 S June 26, 1860 June 28, 1860 3 2 Dec. 3, 1860 Mar. 3, 1861 93 37th S Mar. 4, 1861 Mar. 28, 1861 25 1–E July 4, 1861 Aug. 6, 1861 34 2 Dec. 2, 1861 July 17, 1862 228 3 Dec. 1, 1862 Mar. 3, 1863 93 Dec. 23, 1862– Jan. 5, Dec. 23, 1862– Jan. 5,

1863 1863

38th S Mar. 4, 1863 Mar. 14, 1863 11

1 Dec. 7, 1863 July 4, 1864 209 Dec. 23, 1863– Jan. 5, Dec. 23, 1863– Jan. 5,

1864 1864

2 Dec. 5, 1864 Mar. 3, 1865 89 Dec. 22, 1864– Jan. 5, Dec. 22, 1864– Jan. 5,

1865 1865

39th S Mar. 4, 1865 Mar. 11, 1865 8

1 Dec. 4, 1865 July 28, 1866 237 Dec. 6–Dec. 11, 1865 Dec. 6–Dec. 11, 1865

Dec. 21, 1865– Jan. 5, Dec. 21, 1865– Jan. 5,

1866 1866

2 Dec. 3, 1866 Mar. 3, 1867 91 Dec. 20, 1866– Jan. 3, Dec. 20, 1866– Jan. 3,

1867 1867

40th 1 Mar. 4, 1867 Dec. 1, 1867 273 Mar. 30– July 3, 1867 Mar. 30– July 3, 1867

July 20–Nov. 21, 1867 July 20–Nov. 21, 1867

S Apr. 1, 1867 Apr. 20, 1867 20 2 Dec. 2, 1867 Nov. 10, 1868 345 Dec. 20, 1867– Jan. 6, Dec. 20, 1867– Jan. 6,

1868 1868

July 27–Sept. 21, 1868 July 27–Sept. 21, 1868

Sept. 21–Oct. 16, 1868 Sept. 21–Oct. 16, 1868

Oct. 16–Nov. 10, 1868 Oct. 16–Nov. 10, 1868

3 Dec. 7, 1868 Mar. 3, 1869 87 Dec. 21, 1868– Jan. 5, Dec. 21, 1868– Jan. 5,

1869 1869

41st 1 Mar. 4, 1869 Apr. 10, 1869 38

S Apr. 12, 1869 Apr. 22, 1869 11 2 Dec. 6, 1869 July 15, 1870 222 Dec. 22, 1869– Jan. 10, Dec. 22, 1869– Jan. 10,

1870 1870

3 Dec. 5, 1870 Mar. 3, 1871 89 Dec. 23, 1870– Jan. 4, Dec. 22, 1870– Jan. 4,

1871 1871

42d 1 Mar. 4, 1871 Apr. 20, 1871 48

S May 10, 1871 May 27, 1871 18 2 Dec. 4, 1871 June 10, 1872 190 Dec. 21, 1871–Jan. 8, Dec. 21, 1871– Jan. 8,

1872 1872

3 Dec. 2, 1872 Mar. 3, 1873 92 Dec. 20, 1872– Jan. 6, Dec. 20, 1872– Jan. 6,

1873 1873

43d S Mar. 4, 1873 Mar. 26, 1873 23

1 Dec. 1, 1873 June 23, 1874 204 Dec. 19, 1873– Jan. 5, Dec. 19, 1873– Jan. 5,

1874 1874

2 Dec. 7, 1874 Mar. 3, 1875 87 Dec. 23, 1874– Jan. 5, Dec. 23, 1874– Jan. 5,

1875 1875

44th S Mar. 5, 1875 Mar. 24, 1875 20

1 Dec. 6, 1875 Aug. 15, 1876 254 Dec. 20, 1875– Jan. 5, Dec. 21, 1875– Jan. 5,

1876 1876

2 Dec. 4, 1876 Mar. 3, 1877 90 45th S Mar. 5, 1877 Mar. 17, 1877 13 1–E Oct. 15, 1877 Dec. 3, 1877 50 2 Dec. 3, 1877 June 20, 1878 200 Dec. 15, 1877– Jan. 10, Dec. 15, 1877– Jan. 10,

1878 1878

3 Dec. 2, 1878 Mar. 3, 1879 92 Dec. 20, 1878– Jan. 7, D ec. 20, 1878– Jan. 7,

1879 1879

46th 1–E Mar. 18, 1879 July 1, 1879 106

2 Dec. 1, 1879 June 16, 1880 199 Dec. 19, 1879– Jan. 6, Dec. 19, 1879– Jan. 6,

1880 1880

3 Dec. 6, 1880 Mar. 3, 1881 88 Dec. 23, 1880– Jan. 5, Dec. 23, 1880– Jan. 5,

Appendix A to opinion of the Court

Recesses2

Length

Con- Ses- Convening Adjournment

in

gress sion Date Date Senate House of

days1

Representatives

1881 1881

47th S Mar. 4, 1881 May 20, 1881 78

S Oct. 10, 1881 Oct. 29, 1881 20 1 Dec. 5, 1881 Aug. 8, 1882 247 Dec. 22, 1881–Jan. 5, Dec. 22, 1881– Jan. 5,

1882 1882

2 Dec. 4, 1882 Mar. 3, 1883 90 48th 1 Dec. 3, 1883 July 7, 1884 218 Dec. 24, 1883– Jan. 7, Dec. 24, 1883– Jan. 7,

1884 1884

2 Dec. 1, 1884 Mar. 3, 1885 93 Dec. 24, 1884– Jan. 5, Dec. 24, 1884– Jan. 5,

1885 1885

49th S Mar. 4, 1885 Apr. 2, 1885 30

1 Dec. 7, 1885 Aug. 5, 1886 242 Dec. 21, 1885– Jan. 5, Dec. 21, 1885– Jan. 5,

1886 1886

2 Dec. 6, 1886 Mar. 3, 1887 88 Dec. 22, 1886– Jan. 4, Dec. 22, 1886– Jan. 4,

1887 1887

50th 1 Dec. 5, 1887 Oct. 20, 1888 321 Dec. 22, 1887– Jan. 4, Dec. 22, 1887– Jan. 4,

1888 1888

2 Dec. 3, 1888 Mar. 3, 1889 91 Dec. 21, 1888– Jan. 2, Dec. 21, 1888– Jan. 2,

1889 1889

51st S Mar. 4, 1889 Apr. 2, 1889 30

1 Dec. 2, 1889 Oct. 1, 1890 304 Dec. 21, 1889– Jan. 6, Dec. 21, 1889– Jan. 6,

1890 1890

2 Dec. 1, 1890 Mar. 3, 1891 93 52d 1 Dec. 7, 1891 Aug. 5, 1892 251 2 Dec. 5, 1892 Mar. 3, 1893 89 Dec. 22, 1892– Jan. 4, Dec. 22, 1892– Jan. 4,

1893 1893

53d S Mar. 4, 1893 Apr. 15, 1893 43

1–E Aug. 7, 1893 Nov. 3, 1893 89 2 Dec. 4, 1893 Aug. 28, 1894 268 Dec. 21, 1893– Jan. 3,

1894

3 Dec. 3, 1894 Mar. 3, 1895 97 Dec. 23, 1894– Jan. 3,

1895

54th 1 Dec. 2, 1895 June 11, 1896 193

2 Dec. 7, 1896 Mar. 3, 1897 87 Dec. 22, 1896– Jan. 5, Dec. 22, 1896– Jan. 5,

1897 1897

55th S Mar. 4, 1897 Mar. 10, 1897 11

1–E Mar. 15, 1897 July 24, 1897 131 2 Dec. 6, 1897 July 8, 1898 215 Dec. 18, 1897– Jan. 5, Dec. 18, 1897– Jan. 5,

1898 1898

3 Dec. 5, 1898 Mar. 3, 1899 89 Dec. 21, 1898– Jan. 4, Dec. 21, 1898– Jan. 4,

1899 1899

56th 1 Dec. 4, 1899 June 7, 1900 186 Dec. 20, 1899– Jan. 3, Dec. 20, 1899– Jan. 3,

1900 1900

2 Dec. 3, 1900 Mar. 3, 1901 91 Dec. 20, 1900– Jan. 3, Dec. 21, 1900– Jan. 3,

1901 1901

57th S Mar. 4, 1901 Mar. 9, 1901 6

1 Dec. 2, 1901 July 1, 1902 212 Dec. 19, 1901–Jan. 6, Dec. 19, 1901– Jan. 6,

1902 1902

2 Dec. 1, 1902 Mar. 3, 1903 93 Dec. 20, 1902– Jan. 5, Dec. 20, 1902– Jan. 5,

1903 1903

58th S Mar. 5, 1903 Mar. 19, 1903 15

1–E Nov. 9, 1903 Dec. 7, 1903 29 2 Dec. 7, 1903 Apr. 28, 1904 144 Dec. 19, 1903– Jan. 4, Dec. 19, 1903– Jan. 4,

1904 1904

3 Dec. 5, 1904 Mar. 3, 1905 89 Dec. 21, 1904– Jan. 4, Dec. 21, 1904– Jan. 4,

1905 1905

59th S Mar. 4, 1905 Mar. 18, 1905 15

1 Dec. 4, 1905 June 30, 1906 209 Dec. 21, 1905– Jan. 4, Dec. 21, 1905– Jan. 4,

1906 1906

2 Dec. 3, 1906 Mar. 3, 1907 91 Dec. 20, 1906– Jan. 3, Dec. 20, 1906– Jan. 3,

1907 1907

60th 1 Dec. 2, 1907 May 30, 1908 181 Dec. 21, 1907– Jan. 6, Dec. 21, 1907– Jan. 6,

1908 1908

2 Dec. 7, 1908 Mar. 3, 1909 87 Dec. 19, 1908– Jan. 4, Dec. 19, 1908– Jan. 4,

1909 1909

61st S Mar. 4, 1909 Mar. 6, 1909 3

1–E Mar. 15, 1909 Aug. 5, 1909 144 2 Dec. 6, 1909 June 25, 1910 202 Dec. 21, 1909– Jan. 4, Dec. 21, 1909– Jan. 4,

1910 1910

3 Dec. 5, 1910 Mar. 3, 1911 89 Dec. 21, 1910– Jan. 5, Dec. 21, 1910– Jan. 5,

1911 1911

62d 1–E Apr. 4, 1911 . Aug. 22, 1911 141

2 Dec. 4, 1911 Aug. 26, 1912 267 Dec. 21, 1911–Jan. 3, Dec. 21, 1911– Jan. 3,

1912 1912

3 Dec. 2, 1912 Mar. 3, 1913 92 Dec. 19, 1912– Jan. 2, Dec. 19, 1912– Jan. 2,

1913 1913

63d S Mar. 4, 1913 Mar. 17, 1913 14

1–E Apr. 7, 1913 Dec. 1, 1913 239

Appendix A to opinion of the Court

Recesses2

Length

Con- Ses- Convening Adjournment

in

gress sion Date Date Senate House of

days1

Representatives

2 Dec. 1, 1913 Oct. 24, 1914 328 Dec. 23, 1913– Jan. 12, Dec. 23, 1913– Jan. 12,

1914 1914

3 Dec. 7, 1914 Mar. 3, 1915 87 Dec. 23–Dec. 28, 1914 Dec. 23–Dec. 28, 1914 64th 1 Dec. 6, 1915 Sept. 8, 1916 278 Dec. 17, 1915– Jan. 4, Dec. 17, 1915– Jan. 4,

1916 1916

2 Dec. 4, 1916 Mar. 3, 1917 90 Dec. 22, 1916– Jan. 2, Dec. 22, 1916– Jan. 2,

1917 1917

65th S Mar. 5, 1917 Mar. 16, 1917 12

1–E Apr. 2, 1917 Oct. 6, 1917 188 2 Dec. 3, 1917 Nov. 21, 1918 354 Dec. 18, 1917– Jan. 3, Dec. 18, 1917– Jan. 3,

1918 1918

3 Dec. 2, 1918 Mar. 3, 1919 92 66th 1–E May 19, 1919 Nov. 19, 1919 185 July 1– July 8, 1919 July 1– July 8, 1919 2 Dec. 1, 1919 June 5, 1920 188 Dec. 20, 1919– Jan. 5, Dec. 20, 1919– Jan. 5,

1920 1920

3 Dec. 6, 1920 Mar. 3, 1921 88 67th S Mar. 4, 1921 Mar. 15, 1921 12 1–E Apr. 11, 1921 Nov. 23, 1921 227 Aug. 24–Sept. 21, 1921 Aug. 24–Sept. 21, 1921 2 Dec. 5, 1921 Sept. 22, 1922 292 Dec. 22, 1921–Jan. 3, Dec. 22, 1921– Jan. 3,

1922 1922

3–E Nov. 20, 1922 Dec. 4, 1922 15 4 Dec. 4, 1922 Mar. 3, 1923 90 68th 1 Dec. 3, 1923 June 7, 1924 188 Dec. 20, 1923– Jan. 3, Dec. 20, 1923– Jan. 3,

1924 1924

2 Dec. 1, 1924 Mar. 3, 1925 93 Dec. 20–Dec. 29, 1924 Dec. 20–Dec. 29, 1924 69th S Mar. 4, 1925 Mar. 18, 1925 15 1 Dec. 7, 1925 July 3, 1926 209 Dec. 22, 1925– Jan. 4, Dec. 22, 1925– Jan. 4,

1926 1926

2 Dec. 6, 1926 Mar. 4, 1927 88 Dec. 22, 1926– Jan. 3, Dec. 22, 1926– Jan. 3,

1927 1927

70th 1 Dec. 5, 1927 May 29, 1928 177 Dec. 21, 1927– Jan. 4, Dec. 21, 1927– Jan. 4,

1928 1928

2 Dec. 3, 1928 Mar. 3, 1929 91 Dec. 22, 1928– Jan. 3, Dec. 22, 1928– Jan. 3,

1929 1929

71st S Mar. 4, 1929 Mar. 5, 1929 2

1–E Apr. 15, 1929 Nov. 22, 1929 222 June 19–Aug. 19, 1929 June 19–Sept. 23, 1929 2 Dec. 2, 1929 July 3, 1930 214 Dec. 21, 1929– Jan. 6, Dec. 21, 1929– Jan. 6,

1930 1930

S July 7, 1930 July 21, 1930 15 3 Dec. 1, 1930 Mar. 3, 1931 93 Dec. 20, 1930– Jan. 5, Dec. 20, 1930– Jan. 5,

1931 1931

72d 1 Dec. 7, 1931 July 16, 1932 223 Dec. 22, 1931–Jan. 4, Dec. 22, 1931– Jan. 4,

1932 1932

2 Dec. 5, 1932 Mar. 3, 1933 89 73d S Mar. 4, 1933 Mar. 6, 1933 3 1–E Mar. 9, 1933 June 15, 1933 99 2 Jan. 3, 1934 June 18, 1934 167 74th 1 Jan. 3, 1935 Aug. 26, 1935 236 2 Jan. 3, 1936 June 20, 1936 170 June 8– June 15, 1936 June 8– June 15, 1936 75th 1 Jan. 5, 1937 Aug. 21, 1937 229 2–E Nov. 15, 1937 Dec. 21, 1937 37 3 Jan. 3, 1938 June 16, 1938 165 76th 1 Jan. 3, 1939 Aug. 5, 1939 215 2–E Sept. 21, 1939 Nov. 3, 1939 44 3 Jan. 3, 1940 Jan. 3, 1941 366 July 11– July 22, 1940 July 11– July 22, 1940 77th 1 Jan. 3, 1941 Jan. 2, 1942 365 2 Jan. 5, 1942 Dec. 16, 1942 346 78th 1 Jan. 6, 1943 Dec. 21, 1943 350 July 8–Sept. 14, 1943 July 8–Sept. 14, 1943 2 Jan. 10, 1944 Dec. 19, 1944 345 Apr. 1–Apr. 12, 1944 Apr. 1–Apr. 12, 1944

June 23–Aug. 1, 1944 June 23–Aug. 1, 1944

Sept. 21–Nov. 14, 1944 Sept. 21–Nov. 14, 1944

79th 1 Jan. 3, 1945 Dec. 21, 1945 353 Aug. 1–Sept. 5, 1945 July 21–Sept. 5, 1945

2 Jan. 14, 1946 Aug. 2, 1946 201 Apr. 18–Apr. 30, 1946 80th 1 Jan. 3, 1947 Dec. 19, 1947 351 July 27–Nov. 17, 1947 July 27–Nov. 17, 1947 2 Jan. 6, 1948 Dec. 31, 1948 361 June 20– July 26, 1948 June 20– July 26, 1948

Aug. 7–Dec. 31, 1948 Aug. 7–Dec. 31, 1948

81st 1 Jan. 3, 1949 Oct. 19, 1949 290

2 Jan. 3, 1950 Jan. 2, 1951 365 Sept. 23–Nov. 27, 1950 p Apr. 6–Apr. 18, 1950

Sept. 23–Nov. 27, 1950

82d 1 Jan. 3, 1951 Oct. 20, 1951 291 Mar. 22–Apr. 2, 1951

Aug. 23–Sept. 12, 1951

2 Jan. 8, 1952 July 7, 1952 182 Apr. 10–Apr. 22, 1952 83d 1 Jan. 3, 1953 Aug. 3, 1953 213 Apr. 2–Apr. 13, 1953 2 Jan. 6, 1954 Dec. 2, 1954 331 Aug. 20–Nov. 8, 1954 Apr. 15–Apr. 22, 1954

Nov. 18–Nov. 29, 1954 Adjourned sine die

Aug. 20, 1954

84th 1 Jan. 5, 1955 Aug. 2, 1955 210 Apr. 4–Apr. 13, 1955 Apr. 4–Apr. 13, 1955

2 Jan. 3, 1956 July 27, 1956 207 Mar. 29–Apr. 9, 1956 Mar. 29–Apr. 9, 1956

Appendix A to opinion of the Court

Recesses2

Length

Con- Ses- Convening Adjournment

in

gress sion Date Date Senate House of

days1

Representatives

85th 1 Jan. 3, 1957 Aug. 30, 1957 239 Apr. 18–Apr. 29, 1957 Apr. 18–Apr. 29, 1957

2 Jan. 7, 1958 Aug. 24, 1958 230 Apr. 3–Apr. 14, 1958 Apr. 3–Apr. 14, 1958 86th 1 Jan. 7, 1959 Sept. 15, 1959 252 Mar. 26–Apr. 7, 1959 Mar. 26–Apr. 7, 1959 2 Jan. 6, 1960 Sept. 1, 1960 240 Apr. 14–Apr. 18, 1960 Apr. 14–Apr. 18, 1960

May 27–May 31, 1960 May 27–May 31, 1960

July 3–Aug. 8, 1960 July 3–Aug. 15, 1960

87th 1 Jan. 3, 1961 Sept. 27, 1961 268 Mar. 30–Apr. 10, 1961

2 Jan. 10, 1962 Oct. 13, 1962 277 Apr. 19–Apr. 30, 1962 88th 1 Jan. 9, 1963 Dec. 30, 1963 356 Apr. 11–Apr. 22, 1963 2 Jan. 7, 1964 Oct. 3, 1964 270 July 10– July 20, 1964 Mar. 26–Apr. 6, 1964

Aug. 21–Aug. 31, 1964 July 2– July 20, 1964

Aug. 21–Aug. 31, 1964

89th 1 Jan. 4, 1965 Oct. 23, 1965 293

2 Jan. 10, 1966 Oct. 22, 1966 286 Apr. 7–Apr. 13, 1966 Apr. 7–Apr. 18, 1966

June 30– July 11, 1966 June 30– July 11, 1966

90th 1 Jan. 10, 1967 Dec. 15, 1967 340 Mar. 23–Apr. 3, 1967 Mar. 23–Apr. 3, 1967

June 29– July 10, 1967 June 29– July 10, 1967

Aug. 31–Sept. 11, 1967 Aug. 31–Sept. 11, 1967

Nov. 22–Nov. 27, 1967 Nov. 22–Nov. 27, 1967

2 Jan. 15, 1968 Oct. 14, 1968 274 Apr. 11–Apr. 17, 1968 Apr. 11–Apr. 22, 1968

May 29– June 3, 1968 May 29– June 3, 1968

June 3– July 8, 1968 June 3– July 8, 1968

Aug. 2–Sept. 4, 1968 Aug. 2–Sept. 4, 1968

91st 1 Jan. 3, 1969 Dec. 23, 1969 355 Feb. 7–Feb. 17, 1969 Feb. 7–Feb. 17, 1969

Apr. 3–Apr. 14, 1969 Apr. 3–Apr. 14, 1969

July 2– July 7, 1969 May 28– June 2, 1969

Aug. 13–Sept. 3, 1969 July 2– July 7, 1969

Nov. 26–Dec. 1, 1969 Aug. 13–Sept. 3, 1969

Nov. 6–Nov. 12, 1969

Nov. 26–Dec. 1, 1969

2 Jan. 19, 1970 Jan. 2, 1971 349 Feb. 10–Feb. 16, 1970 Feb. 10–Feb. 16, 1970

Mar. 26–Mar. 31, 1970 Mar. 26–Mar. 31, 1970

Sept. 2–Sept. 8, 1970 May 27– June 1, 1970

Oct. 14–Nov. 16, 1970 July 1– July 6, 1970

Nov. 25–Nov. 30, 1970 Aug. 14–Sept. 9, 1970

Dec. 22–Dec. 28, 1970 Oct. 14–Nov. 16, 1970

Nov. 25–Nov. 30, 1970

Dec. 22–Dec. 29, 1970

92d 1 Jan. 21, 1971 Dec. 17, 1971 331 Feb. 11–Feb. 17, 1971 Feb. 10–Feb. 17, 1971

Apr. 7–Apr. 14, 1971 Apr. 7–Apr. 19, 1971

May 26– June 1, 1971 May 27– June 1, 1971

June 30– July 6, 1971 July 1– July 6, 1971

Aug. 6–Sept. 8, 1971 Aug. 6–Sept. 8, 1971

Oct. 21–Oct. 26, 1971 Oct. 7–Oct. 12, 1971

Nov. 24–Nov. 29, 1971 Oct. 21–Oct. 26, 1971

Nov. 19–Nov. 29, 1971

2 Jan. 18, 1972 Oct. 18, 1972 275 Feb. 9–Feb. 14, 1972 Feb. 9–Feb. 16, 1972

Mar. 30–Apr. 4, 1972 Mar. 29–Apr. 10, 1972

May 25–May 30, 1972 May 24–May 30, 1972

June 30– July 17, 1972 June 30– July 17, 1972

Aug. 18–Sept. 5, 1972 Aug. 18–Sept. 5, 1972

93d 1 Jan. 3, 1973 Dec. 22, 1973 354 Feb. 8–Feb. 15, 1973 Feb. 8–Feb. 19, 1973

Apr. 18–Apr. 30, 1973 Apr. 19–Apr. 30, 1973

May 23–May 29, 1973 May 24–May 29, 1973

June 30– July 9, 1973 June 30– July 10, 1973

Aug. 3–Sept. 5, 1973 Aug. 3–Sept. 5, 1973

Oct. 18–Oct. 23, 1973 Oct. 4–Oct. 9, 1973

Nov. 21–Nov. 26, 1973 Oct. 18–Oct. 23, 1973

Nov. 15–Nov. 26, 1973

2 Jan. 21, 1974 Dec. 20, 1974 334 Feb. 8–Feb. 18, 1974 Feb. 7–Feb. 13, 1974

Mar. 13–Mar. 19, 1974 Apr. 11–Apr. 22, 1974

Apr. 11–Apr. 22, 1974 May 23–May 28, 1974

May 23–May 28, 1974 Aug. 22–Sept. 11, 1974

Aug. 22–Sept. 4, 1974 Oct. 17–Nov. 18, 1974

Oct. 17–Nov. 18, 1974 Nov. 26–Dec. 3, 1974

Nov. 26–Dec. 2, 1974

94th 1 Jan. 14, 1975 Dec. 19, 1975 340 Mar. 26–Apr. 7, 1975 Mar. 26–Apr. 7, 1975

May 22– June 2, 1975 May 22– June 2, 1975

June 27– July 7, 1975 June 26– July 8, 1975

Aug. 1–Sept. 3, 1975 Aug. 1–Sept. 3, 1975

Oct. 9–Oct. 20, 1975 Oct. 9–Oct. 20, 1975

Oct. 23–Oct. 28, 1975 Oct. 23–Oct. 28, 1975

Nov. 20–Dec. 1, 1975 Nov. 20–Dec. 1, 1975

2 Jan. 19, 1976 Oct. 1, 1976 257 Feb. 6–Feb. 16, 1976 Feb. 11–Feb. 16, 1976

Apr. 14–Apr. 26, 1976 Apr. 14–Apr. 26, 1976

May 28– June 2, 1976 May 27– June 1, 1976

July 2– July 19, 1976 July 2– July 19, 1976

Aug. 10–Aug. 23, 1976 Aug. 10–Aug. 23, 1976

Sept. 1–Sept. 7, 1976 Sept. 2–Sept. 8, 1976

95th 1 Jan. 4, 1977 Dec. 15, 1977 346 Feb. 11–Feb. 21, 1977 Feb. 9–Feb. 16, 1977

Appendix A to opinion of the Court

Recesses2

Length

Con- Ses- Convening Adjournment

in

gress sion Date Date Senate House of

days1

Representatives

Apr. 7–Apr. 18, 1977 Apr. 6–Apr. 18, 1977

May 27– June 6, 1977 May 26– June 1, 1977

July 1– July 11, 1977 June 30– July 11, 1977

Aug. 6–Sept. 7, 1977 Aug. 5–Sept. 7, 1977

Oct. 6–Oct. 11, 1977

2 Jan. 19, 1978 Oct. 15, 1978 270 Feb. 10–Feb. 20, 1978 Feb. 9–Feb. 14, 1978

Mar. 23–Apr. 3, 1978 Mar. 22–Apr. 3, 1978

May 26– June 5, 1978 May 25–May 31, 1978

June 29– July 10, 1978 June 29– July 10, 1978

Aug. 25–Sept. 6, 1978 Aug. 17–Sept. 6, 1978

96th 1 Jan. 15, 1979 Jan. 3, 1980 354 Feb. 9–Feb. 19, 1979 Feb. 8–Feb. 13, 1979

Apr. 10–Apr. 23, 1979 Apr. 10–Apr. 23, 1979

May 24– June 4, 1979 May 24–May 30, 1979

June 27– July 9, 1979 June 29– July 9, 1979

Aug. 3–Sept. 5, 1979 Aug. 2–Sept. 5, 1979

Nov. 20–Nov. 26, 1979 Nov. 20–Nov. 26, 1979

Adjourned sine die,

Dec. 20, 1979

2 Jan. 3, 1980 Dec. 16, 1980 349 Apr. 3–Apr. 15, 1980 Feb. 13–Feb. 19, 1980

May 22–May 28, 1980 Apr. 2–Apr. 15, 1980

July 2– July 21, 1980 May 22–May 28, 1980

Aug. 6–Aug. 18, 1980 July 2– July 21, 1980

Aug. 27–Sept. 3, 1980 Aug. 1–Aug. 18, 1980

Oct. 1–Nov. 12, 1980 Aug. 28–Sept. 3, 1980

Nov. 25–Dec. 1, 1980 Oct. 2–Nov. 12, 1980

Nov. 21–Dec. 1, 1980

97th 1 Jan. 5, 1981 Dec. 16, 1981 347 Feb. 6–Feb. 16, 1981 Feb. 6–Feb. 17, 1981

Apr. 10–Apr. 27, 1981 Apr. 10–Apr. 27, 1981

June 25– July 8, 1981 June 26– July 8, 1981

Aug. 3–Sept. 9, 1981 Aug. 4–Sept. 9, 1981

Oct. 7–Oct. 14, 1981 Oct. 7–Oct. 13, 1981

Nov. 24–Nov. 30, 1981 Nov. 23–Nov. 30, 1981

2 Jan. 25, 1982 Dec. 23, 1982 333 Feb. 11–Feb. 22, 1982 Feb. 10–Feb. 22, 1982

Apr. 1–Apr. 13, 1982 Apr. 6–Apr. 20, 1982

May 27– June 8, 1982 May 27– June 2, 1982

July 1– July 12, 1982 July 1– July 12, 1982

Aug. 20–Sept. 8, 1982 Aug. 20–Sept. 8, 1982

Oct. 1–Nov. 29, 1982 Oct. 1–Nov. 29, 1982

98th 1 Jan. 3, 1983 Nov. 18, 1983 320 Jan. 3– Jan. 25, 1983 Jan. 6– Jan. 25, 1983

Feb. 3–Feb. 14, 1983 Feb. 17–Feb. 22, 1983

Mar. 24–Apr. 5, 1983 Mar. 24–Apr. 5, 1983

May 26– June 6, 1983 May 26– June 1, 1983

June 29– July 11, 1983 June 30– July 11, 1983

Aug. 4–Sept. 12, 1983 Aug. 4–Sept. 12, 1983

Oct. 7–Oct. 17, 1983 Oct. 6–Oct. 17, 1983

2 Jan. 23, 1984 Oct. 12, 1984 264 Feb. 9–Feb. 20, 1984 Feb. 9–Feb. 21, 1984

Apr. 12–Apr. 24, 1984 Apr. 12–Apr. 24, 1984

May 24–May 31, 1984 May 24–May 30, 1984

June 29– July 23, 1984 June 29– July 23, 1984

Aug. 10–Sept. 5, 1984 Aug. 10–Sept. 5, 1984

99th 1 Jan. 3, 1985 Dec. 20, 1985 352 Jan. 7– Jan. 21, 1985 Jan. 3– Jan. 21, 1985

Feb. 7–Feb. 18, 1985 Feb. 7–Feb. 19, 1985

Apr. 4–Apr. 15, 1985 Mar. 7–Mar. 19, 1985

May 9–May 14, 1985 Apr. 4–Apr. 15, 1985

May 24– June 3, 1985 May 23– June 3, 1985

June 27– July 8, 1985 June 27– July 8, 1985

Aug. 1–Sept. 9, 1985 Aug. 1–Sept. 4, 1985

Nov. 23–Dec. 2, 1985 Nov. 21–Dec. 2, 1985

2 Jan. 21, 1986 Oct. 18, 1986 278 Feb. 7–Feb. 17, 1986 Feb. 6–Feb. 18, 1986

Mar. 27–Apr. 8, 1986 Mar. 25–Apr. 8, 1986

May 21– June 2, 1986 May 22– June 3, 1986

June 26– July 7, 1986 June 26– July 14, 1986

Aug. 15–Sept. 8, 1986 Aug. 16–Sept. 8, 1986

100th 1 Jan. 6, 1987 Dec. 22, 1987 351 Jan. 6– Jan. 12, 1987 Jan. 8– Jan. 20, 1987

Feb. 5–Feb. 16, 1987 Feb. 11–Feb. 18, 1987

Apr. 10–Apr. 21, 1987 Apr. 9–Apr. 21, 1987

May 21–May 27, 1987 May 21–May 27, 1987

July 1– July 7, 1987 July 1– July 7, 1987

Aug. 7–Sept. 9, 1987 July 15– July 20, 1987

Nov. 20–Nov. 30, 1987 Aug. 7–Sept. 9, 1987

Nov. 10–Nov. 16, 1987

Nov. 20–Nov. 30, 1987

2 Jan. 25, 1988 Oct. 22, 1988 272 Feb. 4–Feb. 15, 1988 Feb. 9–Feb. 16, 1988

Mar. 4–Mar. 14, 1988 Mar. 31–Apr. 11, 1988

Mar. 31–Apr. 11, 1988 May 26– June 1, 1988

Apr. 29–May 9, 1988 June 30– July 7, 1988

May 27– June 6, 1988 July 14– July 26, 1988

June 29– July 6, 1988 Aug. 11–Sept. 7, 1988

July 14– July 25, 1988

Aug. 11–Sept. 7, 1988

Appendix A to opinion of the Court

Recesses2

Length

Con- Ses- Convening Adjournment

in

gress sion Date Date Senate House of

days1

Representatives

101st 1 Jan. 3, 1989 Nov. 22, 1989 324 Jan. 4– Jan. 20, 1989 Jan. 4– Jan. 19, 1989

Jan. 20– Jan. 25, 1989 Feb. 9–Feb. 21, 1989

Feb. 9–Feb. 21, 1989 Mar. 23–Apr. 3, 1989

Mar. 17–Apr. 4, 1989 Apr. 18–Apr. 25, 1989

Apr. 19–May 1, 1989 May 25–May 31, 1989

May 18–May 31, 1989 June 29– July 10, 1989

June 23– July 11, 1989 Aug. 5–Sept. 6, 1989

Aug. 4–Sept. 6, 1989

2 Jan. 23, 1990 Oct. 28, 1990 260 Feb. 8–Feb. 20, 1990 Feb. 7–Feb. 20, 1990

Mar. 9–Mar. 20, 1990 Apr. 4–Apr. 18, 1990

Apr. 5–Apr. 18, 1990 May 25– June 5, 1990

May 24– June 5, 1990 June 28– July 10, 1990

June 28– July 10, 1990 Aug. 4–Sept. 5, 1990

Aug. 4–Sept. 10, 1990

102d 1 Jan. 3, 1991 Jan. 3, 1992 366 Feb. 7–Feb. 19, 1991 Feb. 6–Feb. 19, 1991

Mar. 22–Apr. 9, 1991 Mar. 22–Apr. 9, 1991

Apr. 25–May 6, 1991 May 23–May 29, 1991

May 24– June 3, 1991 June 27– July 9, 1991

June 28– July 8, 1991 Aug. 2–Sept. 11, 1991

Aug. 2–Sept. 10, 1991 Nov. 27, 1991– Jan. 3,

Nov. 27, 1991– Jan. 3, 1992

1992

2 Jan. 3, 1992 Oct. 9, 1992 281 Jan. 3– Jan. 21, 1992 Jan. 3– Jan. 22, 1992

Feb. 7–Feb. 18, 1992 p Apr. 10–Apr. 28, 1992

Apr. 10–Apr. 28, 1992 May 21–May 26, 1992

May 21– June 1, 1992 July 2– July 7, 1992

July 2– July 20, 1992 July 9– July 21, 1992

Aug. 12–Sept. 8, 1992 Aug. 12–Sept. 9, 1992

103d 1 Jan. 5, 1993 Nov. 26, 1993 326 Jan. 7– Jan. 20, 1993 Jan. 6– Jan. 20, 1993

Feb. 4–Feb. 16, 1993 Jan. 27–Feb. 2, 1993

Feb. 18–Feb. 24, 1993 p Feb. 4–Feb. 16, 1993

Apr. 7–Apr. 19, 1993 Apr. 7–Apr. 19, 1993

May 28– June 7, 1993 May 27– June 8, 1993

July 1– July 13, 1993 July 1– July 13, 1993

Aug. 7–Sept. 7, 1993 Aug. 6–Sept. 8, 1993

Oct. 7–Oct. 13, 1993 Sept. 15–Sept. 21, 1993

Nov. 11–Nov. 16, 1993 Oct. 7–Oct. 12, 1993

Nov. 10–Nov. 15, 1993

2 Jan. 25, 1994 Dec. 1, 1994 311 Feb. 11–Feb. 22, 1994 Jan. 26–Feb. 1, 1994

Mar. 26–Apr. 11, 1994 Feb. 11–Feb. 22, 1994

May 25– June 7, 1994 Mar. 24–Apr. 12, 1994

July 1– July 11, 1994 May 26– June 8, 1994

Aug. 25–Sept. 12, 1994 June 30– July 12, 1994

Oct. 8–Nov. 30, 1994 Aug. 26–Sept. 12, 1994

Oct. 8–Nov. 29, 1994

104th 1 Jan. 4, 1995 Jan. 3, 1996 365 Feb. 16–Feb. 22, 1995 Feb. 16–Feb. 21, 1995

Apr. 7–Apr. 24, 1995 Mar. 16–Mar. 21, 1995

May 26– June 5, 1995 Apr. 7–May 1, 1995

June 30– July 10, 1995 May 3–May 9, 1995

Aug. 11–Sept. 5, 1995 May 25– June 6, 1995

Sept. 29–Oct. 10, 1995 June 30– July 10, 1995

Nov. 20–Nov. 27, 1995 Aug. 4–Sept. 6, 1995

Sept. 29–Oct. 6, 1995

Nov. 20–Nov. 28, 1995

2 Jan. 3, 1996 Oct. 4, 1996 276 Jan. 10– Jan. 22, 1996 Jan. 9– Jan. 22, 1996

Feb. 1–Feb. 6, 1996 p Feb. 1–Feb. 27, 1996 p

Feb. 7–Feb. 20, 1996 p Mar. 29–Apr. 15, 1996

Feb. 29–Mar. 5, 1996 p May 23–May 29, 1996

Mar. 29–Apr. 15, 1996 June 28– July 8, 1996

May 24– June 3, 1996 Aug. 2–Sept. 4, 1996

June 28– July 8, 1996

Aug. 2–Sept. 3, 1996

105th 1 Jan. 7, 1997 Nov. 13, 1997 311 Jan. 9– Jan. 21, 1997 Jan. 9– Jan. 20, 1997

Feb. 13–Feb. 24, 1997 Jan. 21–Feb. 4, 1997

Mar. 21–Apr. 7, 1997 Feb. 13–Feb. 25, 1997

May 23– June 2, 1997 p Mar. 21–Apr. 8, 1997

June 27– July 7, 1997 June 26– July 8, 1997

July 31–Sept. 2, 1997 Aug. 1–Sept. 3, 1997

Oct. 9–Oct. 20, 1997 Oct. 9–Oct. 21, 1997

2 Jan. 27, 1998 Dec. 19, 1998 327 Feb. 13–Feb. 23, 1998 Jan. 28–Feb. 3, 1998

Apr. 3–Apr. 20, 1998 Feb. 5–Feb. 11, 1998

May 22– June 1, 1998 Feb. 12–Feb. 24, 1998

June 26– July 6, 1998 Apr. 1–Apr. 21, 1998

July 31–Aug. 31, 1998 May 22– June 3, 1998

Adjourned sine die, June 25– July 14, 1998

Oct. 21, 1998. Aug. 7–Sept. 9, 1998

Oct. 21–Dec. 17, 1998

106th 1 Jan. 6, 1999 Nov. 22, 1999 321 Feb. 12–Feb. 22, 1999 Jan. 6– Jan. 19, 1999

Mar. 25–Apr. 12, 1999 Jan. 19–Feb. 2, 1999

May 27– June 7, 1999 Feb. 12–Feb. 23, 1999

Appendix A to opinion of the Court

Recesses2

Length

Con- Ses- Convening Adjournment

in

gress sion Date Date Senate House of

days1

Representatives

July 1– July 12, 1999 Mar. 25–Apr. 12, 1999

Aug. 5–Sept. 8, 1999 May 27– June 7, 1999

July 1– July 12, 1999

Aug. 6–Sept. 8, 1999

2 Jan. 24, 2000 Dec. 15, 2000 326 Feb. 10–Feb. 22, 2000 Feb. 16–Feb. 29, 2000

Mar. 9–Mar. 20, 2000 Apr. 13–May 2, 2000

Apr. 13–Apr. 25, 2000 May 25– June 6, 2000

May 25– June 6, 2000 June 30– July 10, 2000

June 30– July 10, 2000 July 27–Sept. 6, 2000

July 27–Sept. 5, 2000 Nov. 3–Nov. 13, 2000

Nov. 2–Nov. 14, 2000 Nov. 14–Dec. 4, 2000

Nov. 14–Dec. 5, 2000

107th 1 Jan. 3, 2001 Dec. 20, 2001 352 Jan. 8– Jan. 20, 2001 Jan. 6– Jan. 20, 2001

Feb. 15–Feb. 26, 2001 Jan. 20– Jan. 30, 2001

Apr. 6–Apr. 23, 2001 Jan. 31–Feb. 6, 2001

May 26– June 5, 2001 Feb. 14–Feb. 26, 2001

June 29– July 9, 2001 Apr. 4–Apr. 24, 2001

Aug. 3–Sept. 4, 2001 May 26– June 5, 2001

Oct. 18–Oct. 23, 2001 June 28– July 10, 2001

Nov. 16–Nov. 27, 2001 Aug. 2–Sept. 5, 2001

Oct. 17–Oct. 23, 2001

Nov. 19–Nov. 27, 2001

2 Jan. 23, 2002 Nov. 22, 2002 304 Jan. 29–Feb. 4, 2002 Jan. 29–Feb. 4, 2002

Feb. 15–Feb. 25, 2002 Feb. 14–Feb. 26, 2002

Mar. 22–Apr. 8, 2002 Mar. 20–Apr. 9, 2002

May 23– June 3, 2002 May 24– June 4, 2002

June 28– July 8, 2002 June 28– July 8, 2002

Aug. 1–Sept. 3, 2002 July 27–Sept. 4, 2002

Oct. 17–Nov. 12, 2002 p

108th 1 Jan. 7, 2003 Dec. 9, 2003 337 Feb. 14–Feb. 24, 2003 Jan. 8– Jan. 27, 2003

Apr. 11–Apr. 28, 2003 Feb. 13–Feb. 25, 2003

May 23– June 2, 2003 Apr. 12–Apr. 29, 2003

June 27– July 7, 2003 May 23– June 2, 2003

Aug. 1–Sept. 2, 2003 June 27– July 7, 2003

Oct. 3–Oct. 14, 2003 July 29–Sept. 3, 2003

Nov. 25–Dec. 9, 2003 Nov. 25–Dec. 8, 2003

2 Jan. 20, 2004 Dec. 8, 2004 324 Feb. 12–Feb. 23, 2004 Feb. 11–Feb. 24, 2004

Mar. 12–Mar. 22, 2004 Apr. 2–Apr. 20, 2004

Apr. 8–Apr. 19, 2004 May 20– June 1, 2004

May 21– June 1, 2004 June 9– June 14, 2004

June 9– June 14, 2004 June 25– July 6, 2004

June 25– July 6, 2004 July 22–Sept. 7, 2004

July 22–Sept. 7, 2004 Oct. 9–Nov. 16, 2004

Oct. 11–Nov. 16, 2004 Nov. 24–Dec. 6, 2004

Nov. 24–Dec. 7, 2004

109th 1 Jan. 4, 2005 Dec. 22, 2005 353 Jan. 6– Jan. 20, 2005 Jan. 6– Jan. 20, 2005

Jan. 26– Jan. 31, 2005 Jan. 20– Jan. 25, 2005

Feb. 18–Feb. 28, 2005 Jan. 26–Feb. 1, 2005

Mar. 20–Apr. 4, 2005 Feb. 2–Feb. 8, 2005

Apr. 29–May 9, 2005 Feb. 17–Mar. 1, 2005

May 26– June 6, 2005 Mar. 21–Apr. 5, 2005

July 1– July 11, 2005 May 26– June 7, 2005

July 29–Sept. 1, 2005 July 1– July 11, 2005

Sept. 1–Sept. 6, 2005 July 29–Sept. 2, 2005

Oct. 7–Oct. 17, 2005 Oct. 7–Oct. 17, 2005

Nov. 18–Dec. 12, 2005 Nov. 18–Dec. 6, 2005

2 Jan. 3, 2006 Dec. 9, 2006 341 Jan. 3– Jan. 18, 2006 Jan. 3– Jan. 31, 2006

Feb. 17–Feb. 27, 2006 Feb. 1–Feb. 7, 2006

Mar. 16–Mar. 27, 2006 Feb. 8–Feb. 14, 2006

Apr. 7–Apr. 24, 2006 Feb. 16–Feb. 28, 2006

May 26– June 5, 2006 Mar. 16–Mar. 28, 2006

June 29– July 10, 2006 Apr. 6–Apr. 25, 2006

Aug. 4–Sept. 5, 2006 May 25– June 6, 2006

Sept. 30–Nov. 9, 2006 June 29– July 10, 2006

Nov. 16–Dec. 4, 2006 Aug. 2–Sept. 6, 2006

Sept. 30–Nov. 9, 2006

Nov. 15–Dec. 5, 2006

110th 1 Jan. 4, 2007 Dec. 31, 2007 362 Feb. 17–Feb. 26, 2007 Jan. 24– Jan. 29, 2007

Mar. 29–Apr. 10, 2007 Feb. 16–Feb. 27, 2007

May 25– June 4, 2007 Mar. 30–Apr. 16, 2007

June 29– July 9, 2007 May 24– June 5, 2007

Aug. 3–Sept. 4, 2007 June 28– July 10, 2007

Oct. 5–Oct. 15, 2007 Aug. 4–Sept. 4, 2007

Nov. 16–Dec. 3, 2007 p Nov. 15–Dec. 4, 2007

Dec. 19–Dec. 31, 2007 p

2 Jan. 3, 2008 Jan. 3, 2009 367 Jan. 3– Jan. 22, 2008 p Jan. 3– Jan. 15, 2008

Feb. 14–Feb. 26, 2008 p Mar. 14–Mar. 31, 2008

Mar. 13–Mar. 31, 2008 p May 22– June 3, 2008

May 22– June 2, 2008 p June 26– July 8, 2008

June 27– July 7, 2008 Aug. 1–Sept. 8, 2008

Appendix B to opinion of the Court

Recesses2

Length

Con- Ses- Convening Adjournment

in

gress sion Date Date Senate House of

days1

Representatives

Aug. 1–Sept. 8, 2008 p Oct. 3–Nov. 19, 2008

Oct. 2–Nov. 17, 2008 p Nov. 20–Dec. 9, 2008

Nov. 20–Dec. 8, 2008 p Dec. 10, 2008– Jan. 3,

Dec. 11, 2008– Jan. 2, 2009

2009 p

111th 1 Jan. 6, 2009 Dec. 24, 2009 353 Feb. 13–Feb. 23, 2009 p Feb. 13–Feb. 23, 2009

Apr. 2–Apr. 20, 2009 Apr. 2–Apr. 21, 2009

May 21– June 1, 2009 May 21– June 2, 2009

June 25– July 6, 2009 June 26– July 7, 2009

Aug. 7–Sept. 8, 2009 p July 31–Sept. 8, 2009

Oct. 8–Oct. 13, 2009 p Nov. 6–Nov. 16, 2009

Nov. 10–Nov. 16, 2009 Nov. 19–Dec. 1, 2009

Nov. 21–Nov. 30, 2009

112th 2 Jan. 5, 2010 Dec. 22, 2010 352 Jan. 5– Jan. 20, 2010 p Jan. 5– Jan. 12, 2010

1 Jan. 5, 2011 Feb. 11–Feb. 23, 2010 Feb. 9–Feb. 22, 2010

Mar. 26–Apr. 12, 2010 Mar. 25–Apr. 13, 2010

May 28– June 7, 2010 May 28– June 8, 2010

June 30– July 12, 2010 July 1– July 13, 2010

Aug. 5–Aug. 12, 2010 July 30–Aug. 9, 2010

Aug. 12–Sept. 13, 2010 Aug. 10–Sept. 14, 2010

Sept. 29–Nov. 15, 2010 p Sept. 29–Nov. 15, 2010

Nov. 19–Nov. 29, 2010 Nov. 18–Nov. 29, 2010

Jan. 5– Jan. 25, 2011 Jan. 26–Feb. 8, 2011

Feb. 17–Feb. 28, 2011 Feb. 18–Feb. 28, 2011

Mar. 17–Mar. 28, 2011 Mar. 17–Mar. 29, 2011

Apr. 14–May 2, 2011 Apr. 15–May 2, 2011

May 26– June 6, 2011 p May 13–May 23, 2011

Aug. 2–Sept. 6, 2011 p June 24– July 5, 2011 p

Aug. 1–Sept. 6, 2011 p

1For the purposes of this table, a session's ``length in days'' is defined as the total number of calendar days from the convening date to the adjournment date, inclusive. It does not mean the actual number of days that Congress met during that session. 2For the purposes of this table, a ``recess'' is defined as a break in House or Senate proceedings of three or more days, excluding Sundays. According to Article I, section 5 of the U. S. Constitution, neither house may adjourn for more than three days without the consent of the other. On occasion, both chambers have held one or more pro forma sessions because of this constitutional obligation or for other purposes. Treated here as recesses, usually no business is conducted during these time periods. On this table, beginning in the 1990s, such pro forma sessions are indicated with a P.

B

The following table shows the proportion of recent appointments that have filled pre-recess vacancies. It was compiled with research assistance from the Supreme Court Library. It contains a random sample of the recess appointments by President George W. Bush and President Barack Obama. The last column indicates whether the vacancy arose during the recess in which it was filled. “A” indicates a vacancy that arose during the recess, “P” indicates a vacancy that arose before the recess, and “U” indicates that the vacancy date could not be ascertained.

Date the

Date of

Position Status of

Name Position Recess

Became Vacancy

Appointment

Vacant

Peter J. Member (designated

8/31/01 8/27/20012 A

Hurtgen Chair), NLRB

Appendix B to opinion of the Court

Date the

Date of

Position Status of

1 Name Position Recess

Became Vacancy

Appointment

Vacant

Comm'r on the Part of the Dennis L. US, Int'l Joint Comm'n, US 3/29/02 Unknown3 U Schornack and Canada Tony Comm'r, Postal Rate Hammond Comm'n 8/06/02 2/20014 P Member, Defense Nuclear R. Bruce Facilities Safety Bd. 4/22/03 5/20025 P Matthews (DNFSB) Ephraim Bd. Member, African Dev. Batambuze Found. 8/22/03 2/10/20026 P Bradley D. Member, Social Security Belt Advisory Bd. (SSAB) 12/23/03 9/20027 P Ronald E. Meisburg Member, NLRB 12/23/03 8/21/03 8 P Charles Chief Financial Officer, Johnson EPA 5/28/04 20039 P Member, Advisory Bd., Jack E. St. Lawrence Seaway Dev. 7/02/04 Unknown10 U McGregor Corp. Assistant Adm'r, Bureau for James R. Asia and the Near East, 8/02/04 1/200411 P Kunder USAID Susan J. Grant Chief Financial Officer, Dept. of Energy 8/02/04 200312 P Member (designated Chair), Anthony J. Defense Base Closure and 4/01/05 3/2005 (new Principi position)13 P Realignment Comm'n John R. Bolton US Representative to the UN 8/01/05 1/200514 P Assistant Sec'y, Population, Ellen R. Refugees, and Migration, 1/04/06 by 7/200515 P Sauerbrey Dept. of State Ronald E. Meisburg General Counsel, NLRB 1/04/06 6/03/200516 P Member, Bd. of Trustees, Fed. Old-Age and Survivors John L. Ins. Trust Fund and the 4/19/06 10/200417 P Palmer Fed. Disability Ins. Trust Fund Richard E. Assistant Sec'y, Mine, Stickler Safety, and Health Admin. 10/19/06 11/19/200418 P

Appendix B to opinion of the Court

Date the

Date of

Position Status of

1 Name Position Recess

Became Vacancy

Appointment

Vacant

Susan E.

Adm'r, OIRA, OMB 4/04/07 2/200619 P Dudley Mark G. Pearce Member, NLRB 3/27/10 1/200820 P Mari C. Chief of Mission, El Aponte Salvador, Dept. of State 8/19/10 1/17/0921 P Richard Griffin Jr. Member, NLRB 1/04/12 8/27/1122 P 1 The name, position, and date of each recess appointment were taken from The

Noel Canning Decision 21–

29. The sample was generated by selecting every 10th appointment from a chronological list of all recess appointments made during the Presidencies of George W. Bush and Barack Obama. 2 See White House Press Release: President Bush Announces Hurtgen To Stay on as Member and Chairman of the NLRB, Aug. 31, 2001, online at http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2001/08/ 20010831-14.html. 3 Schornack was preceded by Thomas L. Baldini. 147 Cong. Rec. 12592 (2001). We could not find a specific date for Baldini's departure. See Lane, Engler Advisers Tapped for Water Jobs, Crain's Detroit Business, June 18, 2001, p. 6 (Schornack “would replace Marquette's Thomas Baldini, former President Bill Clinton's appointee”); Finley, Senate Often Turns Its Role of Advise and Consent Into Object and Obstruct, Detroit News, Feb. 10, 2002, p. 13A, col. 1. (“The International Joint Commission post is still held by Clinton appointee Tom Baldini, also of Michigan”). 4 Hammond was preceded by Edward Jay Gleiman, 148 Cong. Rec. 4472 (2002), who retired in February 2001, see Campanelli, PRC Chairman Gleiman Retires, Direct Marketing News, Feb. 6, 2001, online at http:// www.dmnews.com/prc-chairman-gleiman-retires/article/70877. 5 Matthews was preceded by Joseph J. DiNunno, 38 Weekly Comp. of Pres. Doc. 804 (2002), who retired in May 2002, see DNFSB Member Biography, online at http://www.dnfsb.gov/about/ board-members/joseph-j-dinunno. 6 Batambuze was preceded by Henry McKoy, 149 Cong. Rec. 4875 (2003), whose term expired on February 9, 2002, see 32 Weekly Comp. of Pres. Doc. 363 (1996). 7 Belt was preceded by Stanford G. Ross, 149 Cong. Rec. 20993 (2003), whose term on the SSAB expired in September 2002, see SSAB Member List, online at http://www.ssab.gov/AbouttheBoard/Members.aspx. 8 See N. L. R. B. Bulletin, Ronald Meisburg Receives Recess Appointment From President Bush To Be NLRB Member (Dec. 29, 2003), online at http://mynlrb.nlrb.gov/link/document.aspx/09031d45800d5d75. 9 Johnson was preceded by Linda Morrison Combs, 150 Cong. Rec. 236 (2004), who apparently left in 2003, see Hearings on S. 113 before the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, 109th Cong., 1st Sess., 2 (2005) (“Combs served as [CFO] of the [EPA] from 2001 to 2003”); see also 149 Cong. Rec. 31985 (2003) (nomination of Linda Morrison Combs to be Assistant Secretary of Transportation); 150 Cong. Rec. 10973 (2004) (confirmation of Combs to be Assistant Secretary of Transportation). 10 McGregor was preceded by Vincent J. Sorrentino. 149 Cong. Rec. 31985 (2003). We have located no further information about Sorrentino's departure date. 11 Kunder was preceded by Wendy J. Chamberlin, 150 Cong. Rec. 8983 (2004), who accepted a new appointment as of January 2004, see United Nations Refugee Agency Press Release, Wendy Chamberlin Appointed Deputy High Commissioner, Dec. 12, 2003, online at http://www.unhcr.org/news/NEWS/3fda0f584.html. 12 Grant was preceded by Bruce M. Carnes, 149 Cong. Rec. 24527 (2003), who resigned during 2003, see Bush Nominee to Energy Department CFO Post OK'd by Committee, Environment and Energy Daily, Mar. 11, 2004; see also 39 Weekly Comp. of Pres. Doc. 308 (2003). 13 Principi was nominated for this newly created position on March 4, 2005. 151 Cong. Rec. 3543 (2005). The position was created by statute in 2001. 115 Stat. 1343–1344. 14 See Hoge, Diplomats at U. N. Surprised by Danforth's Resignation, N. Y . Times, Dec. 3, 2004, p. A6. 15 Sauerbrey was preceded by Arthur Dewey. 151 Cong. Rec. 19554 (2005); see also Weekly Review of Developments in Human Rights and Democracy, Dow Jones Factiva, June 30, 2005; Arthur E. Dewey, Dept. of State Biography, online at http://2001-2009.state. gov/outofdate/ bios/d/7988.htm. 16 Meisburg was preceded by Arthur F. Rosenfeld, whose term expired on June 3, 2005, see NLRB General Counsels Since 1935, online at http://www.nlrb.gov/who-we-are/general-counsel/general-counsels-1935. 17 Palmer was nominated as a reappointment on November 7, 2005. 151 Cong. Rec. 25016 (2005). The Senate confirmed Palmer to his previous 4-year term on October 24, 2000. 146 Cong. Rec. 23920 (2000).

18 Stickler was preceded by David D. Lauriski, 152 Cong. Rec. 17151 (2006), who resigned on November 19, 2004, see Dept. of Labor, News Release, U. S. Assistant Secretary of Labor for Mine Safety and Health Dave D. Lauriski Announces His Plans for Departure, Nov. 12, 2004. 19 Dudley was preceded by John D. Graham, 152 Cong. Rec. 16707 (2006), who left the office in February 2006, see J. R. Pegg, Bush Bypasses Senate To Appoint Controversial Regulatory Chief, 35 Pesticide & Toxic Chemical News, No. 24, pp. 13–14 (Apr. 9, 2007). 20 Pearce was preceded by Peter N. Kirsanow, whose term had ended by January 2008, see Members of the NLRB Since 1935, online at http://www.nlrb.gov/who-we-are/ board/members-nlrb-1935. 21 Aponte was preceded by Charles Glazer, who left his post on January 17, 2009, see Dept. of State, Office of the Historian, Chiefs of Mission for El Salvador, online at http://history.state. gov/departmenthistory/ people/glazer-charles-l. 22 See App. to Brief for Petitioner 89a.

Justice Scalia, with whom The Chief Justice , Justice Thomas, and Justice Alito join, concurring in the judgment.

Except where the Constitution or a valid federal law provides otherwise, all “Officers of the United States” must be appointed by the President “by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate.” U. S. Const., Art. II, § 2, cl. 2. That general rule is subject to an exception: “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.” Id., § 2, cl. 3. This case requires us to decide whether the Recess Appointments Clause authorized three appointments made by President Obama to the National Labor Relations Board in January 2012 without the Senate's consent.

To prevent the President's recess-appointment power from nullifying the Senate's role in the appointment process, the Constitution cabins that power in two significant ways. First, it may be exercised only in “the Recess of the Senate,” that is, the intermission between two formal legislative sessions. Second, it may be used to fill only those vacancies that “happen during the Recess,” that is, offices that become vacant during that intermission. Both conditions are clear from the Constitution's text and structure, and both were well understood at the founding. The Court of Appeals correctly held that the appointments here at issue are invalid because they did not meet either condition.

The Court's decision transforms the recess-appointment power from a tool carefully designed to fill a narrow and specific need into a weapon to be wielded by future Presidents against future Senates. To reach that result, the majority casts aside the plain, original meaning of the constitutional text in deference to late-arising historical practices that are ambiguous at best. The majority's insistence on deferring to the Executive's untenably broad interpretation of the power is in clear conflict with our precedent and forebodes a diminution of this Court's role in controversies involving the separation of powers and the structure of government. I concur in the judgment only.

Today's majority disregards two overarching principles that ought to guide our consideration of the questions presented here.

First, the Constitution's core, government-structuring provisions are no less critical to preserving liberty than are the later adopted provisions of the Bill of Rights. Indeed,

Second and relatedly, when questions involving the Constitution's government-structuring provisions are presented in a justiciable case, it is the solemn responsibility of the Judicial Branch “ `to say what the law is.' ” Zivotofsky v. Clinton, 566 U. S. 189, 196 (2012) (quoting Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177 (1803)). This Court does not defer to the other branches' resolution of such controversies; as Justice Kennedy has previously written, our role is in no way “lessened” because it might be said that “the two political branches are adjusting their own powers between themselves.” Clinton, supra, at 449 (concurring opinion). Since the separation of powers exists for the protection of individual liberty, its vitality “does not depend” on “whether `the encroached-upon branch approves the encroachment.' ”

Our decision in Chadha illustrates that principle. There, we held that a statutory provision authorizing one House of Congress to cancel an executive action taken pursuant to statutory authority—a so-called “legislative veto”—exceeded the bounds of Congress's authority under the Constitution. 462 U. S., at 957–959. We did not hesitate to hold the legislative veto unconstitutional even though Congress had enacted, and the President had signed, nearly 300 similar provisions over the course of 50 years. Id., at 944–945. Just the opposite: We said the other branches' enthusiasm for the legislative veto “sharpened rather than blunted” our review. Id., at 944. Likewise, when the charge is made that a practice “enhances the President's powers beyond” what the Constitution permits, “[i]t is no answer . . . to say that Congress surrendered its authority by its own hand.” Clinton, 524 U. S., at 451 (Kennedy , J., concurring). “[O]ne Congress cannot yield up its own powers, much less those of other Congresses to follow. Abdication of responsibility is not part of the constitutional design.” Id., at 452 (citations omitted).

Of course, where a governmental practice has been open, widespread, and unchallenged since the early days of the Republic, the practice should guide our interpretation of an ambiguous constitutional provision. See, e. g., Alden v. Maine , 527 U. S. 706, 743–744 (1999); Bowsher , supra, at 723–724; Myers v. United States, 272 U. S. 52, 174–175 (1926);

Ignoring our more recent precedent in this area, which is extensive, the majority relies on The Pocket Veto Case , 279 U. S. 655, 689 (1929), for the proposition that when interpreting a constitutional provision “regulating the relationship between Congress and the President,” we must defer to the settled practice of the political branches if the provision is “ ` “in any respect of doubtful meaning.” ' ” Ante, at 524; see ante, at 526, 533, 540, 549. The language the majority quotes from that case was pure dictum. The Pocket Veto Court had to decide whether a bill passed by the House and Senate and presented to the President less than 10 days before the adjournment of the first session of a particular Congress, but neither signed nor vetoed by the President, became a law. Most of the opinion analyzed that issue like any other legal question and concluded that treating the bill as a law would have been inconsistent with the text and structure of the Constitution. Only near the end of the opinion did the

A. Plain Meaning

A sensible interpretation of the Recess Appointments Clause should start by recognizing that the Clause uses the term “Recess” in contradistinction to the term “Session.” As Alexander Hamilton wrote: “The time within which the power is to operate `during the recess of the Senate' and the duration of the appointments `to the end of the next session' of that body, conspire to elucidate the sense of the provision.” The Federalist No. 67, p. 455 (J. Cooke ed. 1961).

In the founding era, the terms “recess” and “session” had well-understood meanings in the marking-out of legislative time. The life of each elected Congress typically consisted (as it still does) of two or more formal sessions separated by adjournments “sine die ,” that is, without a specified return date. See GPO, Congressional Directory, 113th Cong., pp. 524–542 (2013–2014) (hereinafter Congressional Directory) (listing sessions of Congress from 1789 through 2013); 705 F. 3d 490, 512, and nn. 1–2 (CADC 2013) (case below);

To be sure, in colloquial usage both words, “recess” and “session,” could take on alternative, less precise meanings. A session could include any short period when a legislature's members were “assembled for business,” and a recess could refer to any brief “suspension” of legislative “business.” 2 N. Webster, American Dictionary of the English Language (1828). So the Continental Congress could complain of the noise from passing carriages disrupting its “daily Session,”

More importantly, neither the Solicitor General nor the majority argues that the Clause uses “session” in its loose, colloquial sense. And if “the next Session” denotes a formal session, then “the Recess” must mean the break between formal sessions. As every commentator on the Clause until the 20th century seems to have understood, the “Recess” and the “Session” to which the Clause refers are mutually exclusive, alternating states. See, e. g., The Federalist No. 67, at 455 (explaining that appointments would require Senatorial consent “during the session of the Senate” and would be made by the President alone “ in their recess”); 1 Op. Atty. Gen. 631 (1823) (contrasting vacancies occurring “during the recess of the Senate” with those occurring “during the session of the Senate”); 2 Op. Atty. Gen. 525, 527 (1832) (discussing a vacancy that “took place while the Senate was in session, and not during the recess”). It is linguistically implausible to suppose—as the majority does—that the Clause uses one of those terms (“Recess”) informally and the other (“Session”) formally in a single sentence, with the result that an event can occur during both the “Recess” and the “Session.”

Besides being linguistically unsound, the majority's reading yields the strange result that an appointment made during a short break near the beginning of one official session will not terminate until the end of the following official session, enabling the appointment to last for up to two years. The majority justifies that result by observing that the process of confirming a nominee “may take several months.”

One way to avoid the linguistic incongruity of the majority's reading would be to read both “the Recess” and “the next Session” colloquially, so that the recess-appointment power would be activated during any temporary suspension of Senate proceedings, but appointments made pursuant to that power would last only until the beginning of the next suspension (which would end the next colloquial session). See, e. g., Rappaport, The Original Meaning of the Recess Appointments Clause, 52 UCLA L. Rev. 1487, 1569 (2005) (hereinafter Rappaport, Original Meaning). That approach would be more linguistically defensible than the majority's. But it would not cure the most fundamental problem with giving “Recess” its colloquial, rather than its formal, meaning: Doing so leaves the recess-appointment power without a textually grounded principle limiting the time of its exercise.

The dictionary definitions of “recess” on which the majority relies provide no such principle. On the contrary, they make clear that in colloquial usage, a recess could include any suspension of legislative business, no matter how short. See 2 S. Johnson, A Dictionary of the English Language 1602 (4th ed. 1773). Webster even provides a stark illustration: “[T]he house of representatives had a recess of half an hour.” 2 Webster, supra. The notion that the Constitution empowers the President to make unilateral appointments every time the Senate takes a half-hour lunch break is so absurd as to be self-refuting. But that, in the majority's view, is what the text authorizes.

The boundlessness of the colloquial reading of “the Recess” thus refutes the majority's assertion that the Clause's “purpose” of “ensur[ing] the continued functioning of the

Relatedly, the majority contends that the Clause's supposed purpose of keeping the wheels of government turning demands that we interpret the Clause to maintain its relevance in light of the “new circumstance” of the Senate's taking an increasing number of intra-session breaks that exceed three days. Ante, at 534. Even if I accepted the canard that courts can alter the Constitution's meaning to accommodate changed circumstances, I would be hard pressed to see the relevance of that notion here. The rise of intra-session adjournments has occurred in tandem with the development of modern forms of communication and transportation that mean the Senate “is always available” to consider nominations, even when its Members are temporarily dispersed for an intra-session break. Tr. of Oral Arg. 21 (Ginsburg , J.). The Recess Appointments Clause therefore is, or rather, should be, an anachronism—“essentially an historic relic, something whose original purpose has disappeared.” Id., at 19 (Kagan, J.). The need it was designed to fill no longer

To avoid the absurd results that follow from its colloquial reading of “the Recess,” the majority is forced to declare that some intra-session breaks—though undisputedly within the phrase's colloquial meaning—are simply “too short to trigger the Recess Appointments Clause.” Ante, at 538. But it identifies no textual basis whatsoever for limiting the length of “the Recess,” nor does it point to any clear standard for determining how short is too short. It is inconceivable that the Framers would have left the circumstances in which the President could exercise such a significant and potentially dangerous power so utterly indeterminate. Other structural provisions of the Constitution that turn on duration are quite specific: Neither House can adjourn “for more than three days” without the other's consent. Art. I, § 5, cl. 4. The President must return a passed bill to Congress “within ten Days (Sundays excepted),” lest it become a law. Id., § 7, cl. 2. Yet on the majority's view, when the first Senate considered taking a 1-month break, a 3-day weekend, or a half-hour siesta, it had no way of knowing whether the President would be constitutionally authorized to appoint of-fcers in its absence. And any officers appointed in those circumstances would have served under a cloud, unable to determine with any degree of confidence whether their appointments were valid. 3

And what about breaks longer than three days? The majority says that a break of four to nine days is “presumptively too short” but that the presumption may be rebutted in an “unusual circumstance,” such as a “national catastrophe . . . that renders the Senate unavailable but calls for an urgent response.” Ante, at 538. The majority must hope that the in terrorem effect of its “presumptively too short” pronouncement will deter future Presidents from making any recess appointments during 4-to-9-day breaks and thus save us from the absurd spectacle of unelected judges evalu-ating (after an evidentiary hearing?) whether an alleged “ca-

ones.” Ante, at 535–536. The majority's logic escapes me. The Framers' supposed failure to anticipate “length[y]” intra-session breaks might explain why (as I maintain) they did not bother to authorize recess appointments during intra-session breaks at all; but it cannot explain why (as the majority holds) they would have enacted a text that authorizes appointments during all intra-session breaks—even the short ones the majority says they did anticipate—without placing a temporal limitation on that power.

As for breaks of 10 or more days: We are presumably to infer that such breaks do not trigger any “presumpt[ion]” against recess appointments, but does that mean the President has an utterly free hand? Or can litigants seek invalidation of an appointment made during a 10-day break by pointing to an absence of “unusual” or “urgent” circumstances necessitating an immediate appointment, albeit without the aid of a “presumpt[ion]” in their favor? Or, to put the question as it will present itself to lawyers in the Executive Branch: Can the President make an appointment during a 10-day break simply to overcome “political opposition in the Senate” despite the absence of any “national catastrophe,” even though it “go[es] without saying” that he cannot do so during a 9-day break? Who knows? The majority does not say, and neither does the Constitution. 4

An interpretation that calls for this kind of judicial adven-turism cannot be correct. Indeed, if the Clause really did use “Recess” in its colloquial sense, then there would be no “judicially discoverable and manageable standar[d] for resolving” whether a particular break was long enough to trigger the recess-appointment power, making that a non-justiciable political question. Zivotofsky, 566 U. S., at 195 (internal quotation marks omitted).

dent cannot make recess appointments during the session but can make recess appointments during any break between sessions, no matter how short. Contra the majority, that is not a “problem.” True, the recess-appointment power applies even during very short inter-session breaks. But inter-session breaks typically occur at most a few times a year, and the recess-appointment power is of limited utility during very short intersession breaks since, as explained below, the President can fill only those vacancies that arise during the break. See Part III, infra. Of course, as the Senate Judiciary Committee has argued, the break must be actual and not “constructive”; the Senate must adjourn for some measurable period of time between the two sessions. See infra, at 587–589. But the requirement that there actually be a recess does not involve anywhere near the level of indeterminacy entailed by the majority's requirement that the recess be long enough (or the circumstances unusual enough), as determined by a court, to trigger the recess-appointment power.

B. Historical Practice

For the foregoing reasons, the Constitution's text and structure unambiguously refute the majority's freewheeling interpretation of “the Recess.” It is not plausible that the Constitution uses that term in a sense that authorizes the President to make unilateral appointments during any break in Senate proceedings, subject only to hazy, atextual limits crafted by this Court centuries after ratification. The majority, however, insists that history “offers strong support” for its interpretation. Ante, at 528. The historical practice of the political branches is, of course, irrelevant when the Constitution is clear. But even if the Constitution were thought ambiguous on this point, history does not support the majority's interpretation.

1. 1789 to 1866

To begin, the majority dismisses the 78 years of history from the founding through 1866 as “not helpful” because during that time Congress took hardly any “significant” intra-session breaks, by which the majority evidently means breaks longer than three days. Ibid. (citing table in Appendix A, which does not include breaks of three or fewer days). In fact, Congress took 11 intra-session breaks of more than three days during that time, see Congressional Directory 524–527, and it appears Presidents made recess appointments during none of them.

More importantly, during those eight decades, Congress must have taken thousands of breaks that were three days or shorter. On the majority's reading, every one of those breaks would have been within the Clause's text—the majority's newly minted limitation not yet having been announced. Yet there is no record of anyone, ever, having so much as mentioned the possibility that the recess-appointment power was activated during those breaks. That would be surprising indeed if the text meant what the majority thinks

2. 1867 and 1868

The first intra-session recess appointments in our history almost certainly were made by President Andrew Johnson in 1867 and 1868. 5 That was, of course, a period of dramatic conflict between the Executive and Congress that saw the first-ever impeachment of a sitting President. The Solicitor General counts 57 intra-session recess appointments during those two years. App. to Brief for Petitioner 1a–9a. But the precise nature and historical understanding of many of those appointments is subject to debate. See, e. g., Brief for Constitutional Law Scholars as Amici Curiae 23–24; Rappa-port, Nonoriginalism 27–33. It seems likely that at least 36 of the 57 appointments were made with the understanding that they took place during a recess between sessions. See id., at 27–31.

As for the remainder, the historical record reveals nothing about how they were justified, if at all. There is no indication that Johnson's Attorney General or anyone else considered at the time whether those appointments were made between or during formal legislative sessions or, if the latter, how they could be squared with the constitutional text. The majority drives that point home by citing a judicial opinion

3. 1869 to 1920

More than half a century went by before any other President made an intra-session recess appointment, and there is strong reason to think that during that period neither the Executive nor the Senate believed such a power existed. For one thing, the Senate adjourned for more than 3 days 45 times during that period, and 43 of those adjournments exceeded 10 days (and thus would not even be subject to the majority's “presumption” against the availability of recess appointments). See Congressional Directory 527–529. Yet there is no evidence that a single appointment was made during any of those adjournments or that any President before the 20th century even considered making such appointments.

In 1901 Philander Knox, the first Attorney General known to have opined on the question, explicitly stated that the recess-appointment power was limited to the period between formal sessions. 23 Op. Atty. Gen. 599. Knox advised President Theodore Roosevelt that he could not appoint an appraiser of merchandise during an intra-session adjournment. He explained:

“[T]he Constitution and laws make it clear that in our legislative practice an adjournment during a session of

Congress means a merely temporary suspension of business from day to day . . . whereas the recess means the period after the final adjournment of Congress for the session, and before the next session begins. . . . It is this period following the final adjournment for the session which is the recess during which the President has power to fill vacancies . . . . Any intermediate temporary adjournment is not such recess, although it may be a recess in the general and ordinary use of that term.” Id., at 601.6

Knox went on to observe that none of the “many elaborate opinions” of previous Attorneys General concerning the recess-appointment power had asserted that the power could be exercised “during a temporary adjournment of the Senate,” rather than “during the recess of the Senate between two sessions of Congress.” Id., at 602. He acknowledged the contrary example furnished by Johnson's appointments in 1867 and 1868, but noted (with perhaps too much tact) that “[t]he public circumstances producing this state of affairs were unusual and involved results which should not be viewed as precedents.” Id., at 603.

That was where things stood when, in 1903, Roosevelt made a number of controversial recess appointments. At noon on December 7, the Senate moved seamlessly from a special session into a regular one scheduled to begin at that hour. See 37 Cong. Rec. 544; 38 Cong. Rec. 1. Roosevelt claimed to have made the appointments in a “constructive” recess between the two sessions. See Special Session Is Merged Into Regular, N. Y . Times, Dec. 8, 1903, p. 1. He and his allies in the Senate justified the appointments on the theory that “at the moment the gavel falls to summon the

The majority seeks support in this episode, claiming that the Judiciary Committee embraced a “broad and functional definition of `recess' ” consistent with the one the majority adopts. Ante, at 533. On the contrary, the episode powerfully refutes the majority's theory. Roosevelt's legal justif-cation for his appointments was extremely aggressive, but even he recognized that “the Recess of the Senate” could take place only between formal sessions. If the majority's view of the Clause had been considered plausible, Roosevelt could have strengthened his position considerably by making the appointments during an intra-session break of a few days, or at least a few hours. (Just 10 minutes after the new session began on December 7, the Senate took “a recess for one hour.” 38 Cong. Rec. 2.) That he instead strained to declare a dubious inter-session recess of an “infinitesimal fraction of a second” is powerful evidence that the majority's view of “the Recess” was not taken seriously even as late as the beginning of the 20th century.

Yet the majority contends that “to the extent that the Senate or a Senate committee has expressed a view, that view has favored a functional definition of `recess' [that] encompasses intra-session recesses.” Ante, at 531. It rests that contention entirely on the 1905 Judiciary Committee Report.

4. 1921 to the Present

It is necessary to skip over the first 13 decades of our Nation's history in order to find a Presidential legal adviser arguably embracing the majority's interpretation of “the Recess.” In 1921 President Harding 's Attorney General, Harry Daugherty, advised Harding that he could make recess appointments while the Senate stood adjourned for 28 days during the session because “the term `recess' must be given a practical construction.” 33 Op. Atty. Gen. 20, 25. Daugherty acknowledged Knox's 1901 opinion to the contrary, id., at 21, but he (committing the same fallacy as today's majority) thought the 1905 Judiciary Committee Report had come to the opposite conclusion, id., at 23–24. He also recognized the fundamental flaw in this interpretation: that it would be impossible to “accurately dra[w]” a line between intra-session breaks that constitute “the Recess” and those that do not. Id., at 25. But he thought the absence of a standard gave the President “discretion to determine

7

tion he may take.” Ibid.

Only after Daugherty's opinion did the fow of intra-session recess appointments start, and for several years it was little more than a trickle. The Solicitor General has identified 22 such appointments made by Presidents Harding, Coolidge, Hoover, and Franklin Roosevelt between 1921 and 1944. App. to Brief for Petitioner 9a–12a. Intra-session recess appointments experienced a brief heyday after World War II, with President Truman making about 150 such appointments to civilian positions and several thousand to military posts from 1945 through 1950. Id., at 12a–27a. (The majority's impressive-sounding claim that “Presidents have made thousands of intra-session recess appointments,” ante, at 529, depends entirely on post-war military appointments that Truman made in just two years, 1947 and 1948.) President Eisenhower made only 43 intra-session recess appointments, App. to Brief for Petitioner 27a–30a, after which the practice sank back into relative obscurity. Presidents Ken-nedy, Lyndon Johnson, and Ford made none, while Nixon made just 7. Id., at 30a–31a. The practice rose again in the last decades of the 20th century: President Carter made 17 intra-session recess appointments, Reagan 72, George H. W. Bush 37, Clinton 53, and George W. Bush 135. Id., at 31a–61a. When the Solicitor General filed his brief, President Obama had made 26. Id., at 62a–64a. Even excluding Truman's military appointments, roughly 90 percent of all

Legal advisers in the Executive Branch during this period typically endorsed the President's authority to make intra-session recess appointments by citing Daugherty's opinion with little or no additional analysis. See, e. g., 20 Opinions of Office of Legal Counsel (Op. OLC) 124, 161 (1996) (finding the question to have been “settled within the executive branch” by Daugherty's “often-cited opinion”). The majority's contention that “opinions of Presidential legal advisers . . . are nearly unanimous in determining that the Clause authorizes [intra-session recess] appointments,” ante, at 529, is thus true but misleading: No Presidential legal adviser approved that practice before 1921, and subsequent approvals have rested more on precedent than on independent examination.

The majority is correct that during this period, the Senate “as a body” did not formally repudiate the emerging executive practice. Ante, at 531. And on one occasion, Comptroller General Lindsay Warren cited Daugherty's opinion as representing “the accepted view” on the question, 28 Comp. Gen. 30, 34 (1948), although there is no evidence he consulted any Senators or that his statement reflected their views. But the rise of intra-session recess appointments in the latter half of the 20th century drew sharp criticism from a number of Senators on both sides of the aisle. At first, their objections focused on the length of the intra-session breaks at issue. See, e. g., 130 Cong. Rec. 22774–22776 (1984) (Sen. Sarbanes) (decrying recess appointment during a 3-week intra-session adjournment as “a circumvention of the Senate confirmation power”); id., at 23235 (resolution offered by Sen. Byrd, with 39 cosponsors, urging that no recess appointments occur during intra-session breaks of fewer than 30 days).

Later, many Senators sought to end intra-session recess appointments altogether. In 1993, the Senate Legal Coun-

* * *

What does all this amount to? In short: Intra-session recess appointments were virtually unheard of for the first 130 years of the Republic, were deemed unconstitutional by the first Attorney General to address them, were not openly defended by the Executive until 1921, were not made in significant numbers until after World War II, and have been repeatedly criticized as unconstitutional by Senators of both parties. It is astonishing for the majority to assert that this history lends “strong support,” ante, at 528, to its interpretation of the Recess Appointments Clause. And the majority's contention that recent executive practice

Moreover, the majority's insistence that the Senate gainsay an executive practice “as a body” in order to prevent the Executive from acquiring power by adverse possession, ante, at 531, will systematically favor the expansion of executive power at the expense of Congress. In any controversy between the political branches over a separation-of-powers question, staking out a position and defending it over time is far easier for the Executive Branch than for the Legislative Branch. See generally Bradley and Morrison, Historical Gloss and the Separation of Powers, 126 Harv. L. Rev. 411, 439–447 (2012). All Presidents have a high interest in expanding the powers of their office, since the more power the President can wield, the more effectively he can implement his political agenda; whereas individual Senators may have little interest in opposing Presidential encroachment on legislative prerogatives, especially when the encroacher is a President who is the leader of their own party. (The majority would not be able to point to a lack of “formal action” by the Senate “as a body” challenging intra-session recess appointments, ante, at 533, had the appointing President's party in the Senate not blocked such action on multiple occasions.) And when the President wants to assert a power and establish a precedent, he faces neither the collective-action problems nor the procedural inertia inherent in the legislative process. The majority's methodology thus all but guarantees the continuing aggrandizement of the Executive Branch.

A. Plain Meaning

As the majority concedes, “the most natural meaning of `happens' as applied to a `vacancy' . . . is that the vacancy `happens' when it initially occurs.” Ante, at 538. The majority adds that this meaning is most natural “to a modern ear,” ibid., but it flails to show that founding-era ears heard it differently. “Happen” meant then, as it does now, “[t]o fall out; to chance; to come to pass.” 1 Johnson, Dictionary of the English Language 913. Thus, a vacancy that happened during the recess was most reasonably understood as one that arose during the recess. It was, of course, possible in certain contexts for the word “happen” to mean “happen to be” rather than “happen to occur,” as in the idiom “it so happens.” But that meaning is not at all natural when the subject is a vacancy, a state of affairs that comes into existence at a particular moment in time. 8

For another thing, the majority's reading not only strains the Clause's language but distorts its constitutional role, which was meant to be subordinate. As Hamilton explained, appointment with the advice and consent of the Senate was to be “the general mode of appointing officers of the United States.” The Federalist No. 67, at 455. The Senate's check on the President's appointment power was seen as vital because “ `manipulation of official appointments' had long been one of the American revolutionary generation's greatest grievances against executive power.” Freytag, 501 U. S., at 883. The unilateral power conferred on the President by the Recess Appointments Clause was therefore un-

a “continuing state.” Ante, at 538–539. That suggestion distorts ordinary English usage. It is indeed natural to say that an ongoing activity or event, like a war, a parade, or a financial crisis, is “happening” for as long as it continues. But the same is not true when the subject is a settled state of affairs, like death, marriage, or vacancy, all of which “happen” when they come into being.

If, however, the Clause had allowed the President to fill all pre-existing vacancies during the recess by granting commissions that would last throughout the following session, it would have been impossible to regard it—as the Framers plainly did—as a mere codicil to the Constitution's principal, power-sharing scheme for filling federal offices. On the majority's reading, the President would have had no need ever to seek the Senate's advice and consent for his appointments: Whenever there was a fair prospect of the Senate's rejecting his preferred nominee, the President could have appointed that individual unilaterally during the recess, allowed the appointment to expire at the end of the next session, renewed the appointment the following day, and so on ad inf-nitum. (Circumvention would have been especially easy if, as the majority also concludes, the President was authorized to make such appointments during any intra-session break of more than a few days.) It is unthinkable that such an obvious means for the Executive to expand its power would have been overlooked during the ratification debates. 9

The original understanding of the Clause was consistent with what the majority concedes is the text's “most natural meaning.” Ante, at 538. In 1792, Attorney General Edmund Randolph, who had been a leading member of the Constitutional Convention, provided the Executive Branch's first formal interpretation of the Clause. He advised President

President John Adams' Attorney General, Charles Lee, was in agreement. See Letter to George Washington (July 7, 1796) (the President may “fill for a limited time an old office become vacant during [the] recess” (emphasis added)), online at http://flounders.archives.gov/documents/Washington /99-01-02-00702; Letter from James McHenry to John Adams (May 7, 1799) (hereinafter 1799 McHenry Letter) (conveying Lee's advice that certain offices were “ `vacanc[ies] happening during the session, which the President cannot fill, during the recess, by the powers vested in him by the constitution' ”), online at http://wardepartmentpapers.org/document .php?id=31766.10 One of the most prominent early academic

Early Congresses seem to have shared Randolph's and Lee's view. A statute passed by the First Congress authorized the President to appoint customs inspectors “with the advice and consent of the Senate” and provided that “if the appointment . . . shall not be made during the present session of Congress, the President . . . is hereby empowered to make such appointments during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session.” Act of Mar. 3, 1791, § 4, 1 Stat. 200. That authorization would have been superfluous if the Recess Appointments Clause had been understood to apply to pre-existing vacancies. We have recognized that an action taken by the First Congress “provides `contemporaneous and weighty evidence' of the Constitution's meaning.” Bowsher , 478 U. S., at 723–724. And other statutes passed in the early years of the Republic contained similar authorizations. See App. to Brief for Respondent Noel Canning 1a–17a. 11

view of the Clause that Lee, like Randolph, espoused. And the practice must not have been extensive, since the Solicitor General has been unable to identify even a single appointment made by Adams that filled a pre-recess vacancy. See 11 The majority suggests that these statutes may have reflected, not a infra, at 602–603. belief that the recess-appointment power was limited to vacancies arising during the recess, but a “separate” belief that the power could not be used for “new offices” created by Congress and not previously filled. Ante, at 546. But the latter view (which the majority does not endorse) was inseparably linked with the former (which the majority rejects), as is made clear by the very source the majority cites. See Letter from Alexander Hamilton to James McHenry (May 3, 1799), in 23 Papers of Alexander Hamilton 94 (H. Syrett ed. 1976) (“[T]he power to fill the Vacancy is not the power to make an original appointment. The phrase `Which may have happened' serves to confirm this construction. . . . [I]ndependent of the authority of a special law, the President cannot fill a vacancy which happens

The majority, however, relies heavily on a contrary account of the Clause given by Attorney General William Wirt in 1823. See 1 Op. Atty. Gen. 631. Wirt notably began—as does the majority—by acknowledging that his predecessors' reading was “most accordant with the letter of the constitu-

during a session of the Senate”); see also 2 Op. Atty. Gen., at 334 (“If the vacancy exist during the session of the Senate, as in the first creation of an office by law, it has been held that the President cannot appoint during the recess, unless he is specially authorized so to do by law”); W. Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States of America 163 (2d ed. 1829) (reprint 2009) (“It has been held by [the Senate], that if new offices are created by congress, the president cannot, after the adjournment of the senate, make appointments to fill them. The vacancies do not happen during the recess of the senate”).

Wirt's argument is doubly flawed. To begin, the Constitution provides ample means, short of rewriting its text, for dealing with the hypothetical dilemma Wirt posed. Congress can authorize “acting” officers to perform the duties associated with a temporarily vacant office—and has done that, in one form or another, since 1792. See 5 U. S. C. § 3345; Act of May 8, 1792, ch. 37, § 8, 1 Stat. 281; 705 F. 3d, at 511; Rappaport, Original Meaning 1514–1517. And on “extraordinary Occasions” the President can call the Senate back into session to consider a nomination. Art. II, § 3. If the Framers had thought those options insufficient and preferred to authorize the President to make recess appointments to fill vacancies arising late in the session, they would have known how to do so. Massachusetts, for example, had authorized its Governor to make certain recess appointments “in case a vacancy shall happen . . . in the recess of the General Court [i. e., the state legislature], or at so late a period in any session of the same Court, that the vacancy . . . shall not be supplied in the same session thereof .” 1783 Mass. Acts ch. 12, in Acts and Laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts 523 (1890) (emphasis added).

The majority protests that acting appointments, unlike recess appointments, are an “inadequate” solution to Wirt's hypothetical dilemma because acting officers “may have less authority than Presidential appointments.” Ante, at 541. It cites an OLC opinion which states that “an acting of-

More fundamentally, Wirt and the majority are mistaken to say that the Constitution's “ `substantial purpose' ” is to “ `keep . . . offices filled.' ” Ibid. (quoting 1 Op. Atty. Gen., at 632). The Constitution is not a road map for maximally efficient government, but a system of “carefully crafted restraints” designed to “protect the people from the improvident exercise of power.” Chadha, 462 U. S., at 957, 959. Wirt's and the majority's argumentum ab inconvenienti thus proves far too much. There are many circumstances other than a vacancy that can produce similar inconveniences if they arise late in the session: For example, a natural disaster might occur to which the Executive cannot respond effectively without a supplemental appropriation. But in those circumstances, the Constitution would not permit the President to appropriate funds himself. See Art. I, § 9, cl. 7. Congress must either anticipate such eventualities or be prepared to be haled back into session. The troublesome need to do so is not a bug to be fixed by this Court, but a calculated feature of the constitutional framework. As we have

B. Historical Practice

For the reasons just given, it is clear that the Constitution authorizes the President to fill unilaterally only those vacancies that arise during a recess, not every vacancy that happens to exist during a recess. Again, however, the majority says “[h]istorical practice” requires the broader interpretation. Ante, at 543. And again the majority is mistaken. Even if the Constitution were wrongly thought to be ambiguous on this point, a fair recounting of the relevant history does not support the majority's interpretation.

1. 1789 to 1822

The majority correctly admits that there is “no undisputed record of Presidents George Washington, John Adams, or Thomas Jefferson” using a recess appointment to fill a pre-recess vacancy. Ibid. That is not surprising in light of Randolph's early conclusion that doing so would be unconstitutional. Adams on one occasion contemplated filling pre-recess vacancies but was dissuaded by, among others, Attorney General Lee, who said the Constitution did not permit him to do so. See 1799 McHenry Letter. 12 And the Solici-

James Madison's administration seems to have rejected the majority's reading as well. In 1814, Madison wanted to appoint Andrew Jackson to a vacant major-generalship in the Army during the Senate's recess, but he accepted, without contradiction or reservation, his Secretary of War's advice that he lacked the power to do so because the post's previous occupant had resigned before the recess. He therefore ordered that Jackson be given a “brevet of Major General,” i. e., a warrant conferring the nominal rank without the salary thereof. Letter from John Armstrong to Madison (May 14, 1814); Letter from Madison to Armstrong (May 17, 1814). In conveying the brevet, Madison's Secretary of War explained to Jackson that “ `[t]he vacancy produced by Gen. Hampton's resignation, not having been filled during the late session of the Senate, cannot be supplied constitutionally, during the recess.' ” Letter from Armstrong to Jackson (May 22, 1814). A week later, when Madison learned that a different major general had resigned during the recess, he thought that development would enable him to appoint Jackson “at once.” Letter from Madison to Armstrong (May 24, 1814); see Letter from Armstrong to Madison (May 20, 1814) (reporting the resignation). 13

The majority discounts that evidence of an occasion when Madison and his advisers actually considered the precise constitutional question presented here. It does so apparently

(May 3, 1799), in id., at 94 (“It is clear, that independent of the authority of a special law, the President cannot fill a vacancy which happens during a session of the Senate”). 13 All the letters cited in this paragraph are available online courtesy of the Library of Congress. See James Madison Papers, http://memory.loc .gov/ammem/collections/madison_papers.

If Madison or his predecessors made any appointments in reliance on the broader reading, those appointments must have escaped general notice. In 1822, the Senate Committee on Military Affairs declared that the President had “no power to make [appointments] in the recess” where “the vacancies did not happen in the recess.” 38 Annals of Cong. 500. The Committee believed its construction had been “heretofore observed” and that “no instance ha[d] before occurred . . . where the President ha[d] felt himself authorized to fill such vacancies, without special authority by law.” Ibid.; see also T. Sergeant, Constitutional Law 373 (2d ed. 1830) (“[I]t seemed distinctly understood to be the sense of the senate, that [it] is only in offices that become vacant dur-

2. 1823 to 1862

The Executive Branch did not openly depart from Randolph's and Lee's interpretation until 1823, when Wirt issued the opinion discussed earlier. Even within that branch, Wirt's view was hotly contested: William Crawford, Monroe's Treasury Secretary, argued “with great pertinacity” that the Clause authorized the President to fill only “vacancies which happen during the recess” and not those “which happen while Congress are in session.” 5 Memoirs of John Quincy Adams 486–487 (C. Adams ed. 1875). Wirt's analysis nonetheless gained ground in the Executive Branch over the next four decades; but it did so slowly and fitfully.

In 1830, Attorney General Berrien disagreed with Wirt when he wrote that “[i]f the vacancy exist during the session of the Senate, . . . the President cannot appoint during the recess.” 2 Op. Atty. Gen. 333, 334. Two years later, Attorney General Taney endorsed Wirt's view although doing so was, as he acknowledged, unnecessary to resolve the issue before him: whether the President could, during the recess, fill a vacancy resulting from the expiration of a prior recess appointment at the end of the Senate's session. 2 Op. Atty. Gen. 525, 528 (1832). Addressing the same issue in 1841, Attorney General Legaré appeared to believe the dispositive question was whether the office could be said to have “be-com[e] vacant” during the recess. 3 Op. Atty. Gen. 673, 674. And in 1845, Attorney General Mason thought it “well established” that “[i]f vacancies are known to exist during the session of the Senate, and nominations are not then made, they cannot be filled by executive appointments in the recess.” 4 Op. Atty. Gen. 361, 363. 15

3. 1863 to 1939

Two months after Lincoln's recess appointment of Davis, the Senate directed the Judiciary Committee “to inquire whether the practice . . . of appointing officers to fill vacancies which have not occurred during the recess of Congress, but which existed at the preceding session of Congress, is in accordance with the Constitution; and if not, what remedy shall be applied.” Cong. Globe, 37th Cong., 3d Sess., 100

reaching that conclusion, Mason reiterated that the recess-appointment power “depends on the happening of vacancies when the Senate is not in session” and said the vacancy at issue was “within the meaning of” the Clause because the happening of the vacancy and the termination of the session had “occurred eo instanti.” 4 Op. Atty. Gen. 523, 526–527 (1846).

“When must the vacancy . . . accrue or spring into existence? May it begin during the session of the Senate, or must it have its beginning during the recess? We think the language too clear to admit of reasonable doubt, and that, upon principles of just construction, this period must have its inceptive point after one session has closed and before another session has begun. . . .

. . . . . “We . . . dissent from the construction implied by the substituted reading, `happened to exist,' for the word `happen' in the clause. . . . [I]f a vacancy once exists, it has in law happened; for it is in itself an instantaneous event. It implies no continuance of the act that produces it, but takes effect, and is complete and perfect at an indivisible point of time, like the beginning or end of a recess. Once in existence, it has happened, and the mere continuance of the condition of things which the occurrence produces, cannot, without confounding the most obvious distinctions, be taken or treated as the occurrence itself, as Mr. Wirt seems to have done. . . . “Again, we see no propriety in forcing the language from its popular meaning in order to meet and fulfl one confessedly great purpose, (the keeping the office filled,) while there is plainly another purpose of equal magnitude and importance (fitting qualifications) attached to and inseparable from the former.” Id., at 3–6.

The Committee acknowledged that the broad reading “ha[d] been, from time to time, sanctioned by Attorneys General . . . and that the Executive ha[d], from time to time, practiced

On the same day the Committee published its scathing report, its chairman, Senator Trumbull, proposed a law barring the payment of any officer appointed during the recess to fill a pre-recess vacancy. Cong. Globe, 37th Cong., 3d Sess., 564. Senator Fessenden spoke in support of the proposal:

“It ought to be understood distinctly, that when an of-fcer does not come within the rules of law, and is appointed in that way in defiance of the wishes of the Senate, he shall not be paid. It may not be in our power to prevent the appointment, but it is in our power to prevent the payment; and when payment is prevented, I think that will probably put an end to the habit of making such appointments.” Id., at 565.

The amendment was adopted by the Senate, ibid., and after passing the House became the Pay Act, which provided that “no money shall be paid . . . out of the Treasury, as salary, to any person appointed during the recess of the Senate, to fill a vacancy . . . which . . . existed while the Senate was in session.” Act of Feb. 9, 1863, § 2, 12 Stat. 646 (codified at Rev. Stat. § 1761; subsequently codified as amended at 5 U. S. C. § 56 (1925–1926 ed.)).

The Pay Act would remain in force without significant modification for nearly eight decades. The Executive Branch, however, refused to acknowledge that the Act embodied the Senate's rejection of the broad reading of “happen.” Several Attorneys General continued to treat Wirt's interpretation as settled without so much as mentioning the Act. See 12 Op. Atty. Gen. 32 (1866); 12 Op. Atty. Gen. 449 (1868); 14 Op. Atty. Gen. 562 (1875); 15 Op. Atty. Gen. 207 (1877). And when, 17 years after its passage, Attorney General Devens deigned to acknowledge the Act, he preposter-

The majority is not that bold. Instead, it relegates the 1863 Judiciary Committee Report to a pair of anodyne sentences in which it says only that the Committee “disagreed with” Wirt's interpretation. Ante, at 547. (With like understatement, one could say that Shakespeare's Mark Antony “disagreed with” Caesar's detractors.) Even more remarkably, the majority goes on to claim that the Senate's passage of the Pay Act on the same day the Committee issued its report was not a strong enough statement to impede the constitutionalization-by-adverse-possession of the power asserted by the Executive. Why not? Because, the majority says, some Senators may have disagreed with the report, and because the Senate did not go so far as to make acceptance of a recess appointment that filled a pre-recess vacancy “a federal crime.” Ibid. That reasoning starkly illustrates the excessive burden the majority places on the Legislative Branch in contests with the Executive over the separation of powers. See supra, at 593.

Despite its minimization by subsequent Attorneys General and by today's majority, there is no reason to doubt that the Pay Act had a deterrent effect. The Solicitor General has identified just 40 recess appointments that filled pre-recess vacancies during the nearly eight decades between the Act's passage in 1863 and its amendment in 1940. App. to Brief for Petitioner 71a–79a.16

4. 1940 to the Present

The majority finds it highly significant that in 1940, Congress created a few carefully limited exceptions to the Pay Act's prohibition on paying recess appointees who filled pre-recess vacancies. See Act of July 11, 1940, ch. 580, 54 Stat. 751, now codified with nonsubstantive amendments at 5 U. S. C. § 5503. Under the current version of the Act, “[p]ayment for services may not be made from the Treasury of the United States to an individual appointed during a recess of the Senate to fill a vacancy” that “existed while the Senate was in session” unless either the vacancy arose, or a different individual's nomination to fill the vacancy was rejected, “within 30 days before the end of the session”; or a nomination was pending before the Senate at the end of the session, and the individual nominated was not himself a recess appointee. § 5503(a)(1)–(3). And if the President fills a pre-recess vacancy under one of the circumstances speci-fed in the Act, the law requires that he submit a nomination for that office to the Senate “not later than 40 days after the beginning of the next session.” § 5503(b).

The majority says that by allowing salaries to be paid to recess appointees in these narrow circumstances, “the 1940 Senate (and later Senates) in effect supported” the majority's interpretation of the Clause. Ante, at 549. Nonsense. Even as amended, the Act strictly regulates payment to recess appointees who fill pre-recess vacancies, and it still forbids payment to many officers whose appointments are constitutional under the majority's interpretation. As amici Senators observe, the 1940 amendments “refect at most a desire not to punish public servants caught in the crossfre” of interbranch conflict. Brief for Sen. McConnell et al. as Amici Curiae 30. Surely that inference is more reasonable

majority's reading without analysis. 53 Cong. Rec. 4298. The reader can decide whether those statements by three Senators justify the assertion that the Senate “abandoned its hostility” to the broad reading, ante, at 547.

Moreover, given the majority's interpretation of the Recess Appointments Clause, it is fairly debatable whether the current version of the Pay Act is constitutional (and a forti-ori, whether the pre-1940 version was constitutional). Even as amended, the Act seeks to limit and channel the President's exercise of the recess-appointment power by forbidding payment to officers whose appointments are (per the majority) within the President's sole constitutional authority if those appointments do not comply with conditions imposed by Congress, and by requiring the President to submit a nominee to the Senate in the first 40 days of the ensuing session. There is a colorable argument—which is routinely made by lawyers in the Executive Branch—that Congress “ `cannot use the appropriations power to control a Presidential power that is beyond its direct control.' ” 33 Op. OLC –––, ––– (2009), online at http://www.justice.gov/olc /opiniondocs/section7054.pdf (quoting 20 Op. OLC 253, 267 (1996)). Consistent with that view, the Office of Legal Counsel has maintained that Congress could not “condition . . . the funding of an officer's salary on being allowed to appoint the officer.” 13 Op. OLC 258, 261 (1989).

If that is correct, then the Pay Act's attempt to control the President's exercise of the recess-appointment power at least raises a substantial constitutional question under the majority's reading of the Recess Appointments Clause. See Rap-paport, Original Meaning 1544–1546. The Executive has not challenged the Act's constitutionality in this case, and I express no opinion on whether such a challenge would succeed. I simply point out that it is impossible to regard the amended Pay Act as evidence of Senatorial acquiescence in the majority's reading when that reading has the potential to invalidate the Act.

The majority, however, finds it significant that in two small “random sample[s]” of contemporary recess appointments— 24 since 1981 and 21 since 2000—the bulk of the appointments appear to have filled pre-existing vacancies. Ante, at 546. Based on that evidence, the majority thinks it “a fair inference that a large proportion of the recess appointments in the history of the Nation have filled pre-existing vacancies.” Ibid. The extrapolation of that sweeping conclusion from a small set of recent data does not bear even the slight-est scrutiny. The majority ignores two salient facts: First, from the founding until the mid-19th century, the President's authority to make such appointments was far from settled even within the Executive Branch. Second, from 1863 until 1940, it was illegal to pay any recess appointee who filled a pre-recess vacancy, which surely discouraged Presidents from making, and nominees from accepting, such appointments. Consequently, there is no reason to assume that the majority's sampling—even if it accurately reflects practices during the last three decades—is at all typical of practices that prevailed throughout “the history of the Nation.” 17

* * *

In sum: Washington's and Adams' Attorneys General read the Constitution to restrict recess appointments to vacancies arising during the recess, and there is no evidence that any of the first four Presidents consciously departed from that reading. The contrary reading was first defended by an executive official in 1823, was vehemently rejected by the Senate in 1863, was vigorously resisted by legislation in place from 1863 until 1940, and is arguably inconsistent with legislation in place from 1940 to the present. The Solicitor General has identified only about 100 appointments that have ever been made under the broader reading, and while it seems likely that a good deal more have been made in the last few decades, there is good reason to doubt that many were made before 1940 (since the appointees could not have been compensated). I can conceive of no sane constitutional theory under which this evidence of “historical practice”— which is actually evidence of a long-simmering inter-branch conflict—would require us to defer to the views of the Executive Branch.

IV . Conclusion

What the majority needs to sustain its judgment is an ambiguous text and a clear historical practice. What it has is a clear text and an at-best-ambiguous historical practice. Even if the Executive could accumulate power through adverse possession by engaging in a consistent and unchal-

suggests that many of the vacancies initially arose prior to the recess.” Ante, at 545. The inference is unwarranted, since there are many circumstances other than random chance that could cause a vacancy to arise early in the recess: For example, the prior officeholder may have been another recess appointee whose commission expired at the end of the Senate's session, or he may have waited until the recess to resign so that his successor could be compensated without violating the Pay Act. In any event, the overwhelming majority of the intra-session recess appointments on the Solicitor General's list occurred after 1945 and do not shed light on earlier practices.

The majority replaces the Constitution's text with a new set of judge-made rules to govern recess appointments. Henceforth, the Senate can avoid triggering the President's now-vast recess-appointment power by the odd contrivance of never adjourning for more than three days without holding a pro forma session at which it is understood that no business will be conducted. Ante, at 549–550. How this new regime will work in practice remains to be seen. Perhaps it will reduce the prevalence of recess appointments. But perhaps not: Members of the President's party in Congress may be able to prevent the Senate from holding pro forma sessions with the necessary frequency, and if the House and Senate disagree, the President may be able to adjourn both “to such Time as he shall think proper.” U. S. Const., Art. II, § 3. In any event, the limitation upon the President's appointment power is there not for the benefit of the Senate, but for the protection of the people; it should not be dependent on Senate action for its existence.

The real tragedy of today's decision is not simply the abolition of the Constitution's limits on the recess-appointment power and the substitution of a novel framework invented by this Court. It is the damage done to our separation-of-powers jurisprudence more generally. It is not every day that we encounter a proper case or controversy requiring interpretation of the Constitution's structural provisions. Most of the time, the interpretation of those provisions is left to the political branches—which, in deciding how much respect to afford the constitutional text, often take their cues from this Court. We should therefore take every opportu-

I concur in the judgment only.