This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-21205327

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Obama recess appointments found unconstitutional Obama recess appointments found unconstitutional
(35 minutes later)
A US court has found three labour board appointments made by President Barack Obama during a Senate recess in 2012 were unconstitutional. A US court has found three National Labor Relations Board appointments made by President Barack Obama during a 2012 Senate recess were unconstitutional.
White House spokesman Jay Carney said the decision was "novel and unprecedented".White House spokesman Jay Carney said the decision was "novel and unprecedented".
The ruling struck down the appointments to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), saying the Senate was technically not in recess at the time. The ruling said that the Senate was not technically in recess when the appointments to the NLRB were made.
Mr Obama also appointed the head of a new agency at the same time. Mr Obama also appointed the head of a new agency, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, at the same time.
But the White House argued Richard Cordray's nomination to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau would not be affected by Friday's ruling. But the White House argued Richard Cordray's nomination to the CFPB would not be affected by Friday's ruling.
'Sham' sessions'Sham' sessions
The court's decision will be welcomed by Republicans and business groups that say NLRB decisions have made it easier for labour groups to organise new members. The court's decision will be welcomed by business groups that criticise NLRB decisions that make it easier for labour groups to organise new members.
"It contradicts 150 years of practice by Democratic and Republican administrations," Mr Carney said on Friday. "So we respectfully but strongly disagree with the rulings.""It contradicts 150 years of practice by Democratic and Republican administrations," Mr Carney said on Friday. "So we respectfully but strongly disagree with the rulings."
Several Republicans hailed the decision by the three conservative judges on the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit.Several Republicans hailed the decision by the three conservative judges on the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit.
House Speaker John Boehner welcomed it as "a victory for accountability in government", while Utah Senator Orrin Hatch said it would "go a long way toward restoring the constitutional separation of powers". House Speaker John Boehner said it was "a victory for accountability in government", while Utah Senator Orrin Hatch said it would "go a long way toward restoring the constitutional separation of powers".
Republican lawmakers used the pro-forma sessions - as Democrats have done in the past - to prevent the president from using his recess appointments power.Republican lawmakers used the pro-forma sessions - as Democrats have done in the past - to prevent the president from using his recess appointments power.
The White House argued that the pro-forma sessions - some lasting less than a minute - were a sham.The White House argued that the pro-forma sessions - some lasting less than a minute - were a sham.
On Friday the three-judge panel disagreed. "In short, we hold that 'the Recess' is limited to intersession recesses," they wrote in the opinion.On Friday the three-judge panel disagreed. "In short, we hold that 'the Recess' is limited to intersession recesses," they wrote in the opinion.
"Considering the text, history and structure of the constitution, these appointments were invalid from their inception.""Considering the text, history and structure of the constitution, these appointments were invalid from their inception."
The White House directed comment on the possibility of an appeal to the justice department, a likelihood increased by conflicting rulings from other federal courts. The Department of Justice hinted that the administration would probably appeal the ruling.
If the decision stands, it could invalidate hundreds of board decisions made over the past year.If the decision stands, it could invalidate hundreds of board decisions made over the past year.