Those who celebrated the holiday at the cinema undoubtedly noticed the eerie resemblance between the United States Supreme Court on one hand and Smaug the Magnificent on the other. True, Benedict Cumberbatch (voice of the dragon in The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug) can’t match the vocal hauteur of Chief Justice John G. Roberts spouting flame at the solicitor general, but consider the other similarities. Both live in magnificent, inaccessible palaces. Both can seem somnolent, given only to faint sleepy rumblings and snorts, but can rise without warning to rain fire on the villages below.
The Court finished 2013 quiescent but grumbling: Consider that the most electrifying moment of the December sitting was Justice Clarence Thomas’s bench opinion in a unanimous decision about the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.
January, however, will have flames aplenty. This Court majority is increasingly scornful of precedent, even recent precedent, and seemingly impatient to push the law rightward. We may, in fact, see a first sign of this next month—some Court observers believe the time is ripe for the opinion in McCutcheon v. Federal Elections Commission, the attack on federal contribution limits.
Monday, January 13, will be the most watched “pure” constitutional case of the term, National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning. Article II § 2 cl. 3 provides that the president “shall have the power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate” by making temporary appointments that will last until the end of the next congressional session. During the Bush and Obama years, first Democratic and later Republican senators held farcical one-senator “pro forma” sessions (a single bored senator from a nearby state “convening” an empty chamber for 15 minutes or so) to prevent the president from using this power. When Republican filibusters stripped the National Labor Relations Board of any approved members, the Obama administration declared that “pro forma” sessions actually are “the recess of the Senate, and named temporary members to the board.
It was no surprise when the District of Columbia Circuit voided those appointments. But that court, using the most questionable “originalism” I’ve ever seen in a judicial opinion, went beyond the facts to gut the recess power almost completely. The majority looked up the word “the” in an old English dictionary and proclaimed that there’s only one “recess,” and that both the appointment and the vacancy itself must occur during that “recess.” In recent years, that break between one Congress and the next has dwindled to a few minutes or seconds every two years; the opinion essentially guts the recess power.
In case anyone missed the huge partisan overtones of the case, the Court has granted argument time to lawyers for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. The immediate effect of any decision is hard to gauge—with the filibuster reforms enacted in November, the Obama administration can now get a timely vote on most of its nominees. But if the Senate changes hands in November, a hostile majority could block the president from making any appointments at all, and the recess power will seem pretty important.
Obama's tactic of calling pro forma sessions "recesses" will lose (as it deserves to); the interesting question is whether the conservatives will cut back executive power in ways that will affect future presidents.
Two days later, the Court moves on to abortion. McCullen v. Coakley doesn’t directly impact the right to choose. But it offers a chance to roll back abortion-related precedent—the 2000 case of Hill v. Colorado. Hill provided constitutional support for state and federal laws creating buffers around reproductive-health facilities so that staff and patients do not have to fight their way through angry anti-abortion protesters. These “buffer” laws raise serious concerns under the First Amendment. In Hill, the Court’s majority upheld a Colorado law that forbade anyone to approach within 10 feet of an entering patient in order to protest or persuade the patient. The Court reasoned that the buffer protected not just a patient’s feelings but —since angry confrontations might raise a woman’s blood pressure or even bring on premature labor in some cases—her physical health.