The Constitution's Recess Appointments Clause lets the president fill vacancies that "may happen during the Recess of the Senate" without immediate Senate confirmation, with the appointment expiring at the end of the next Senate session. Originally a practical accommodation when senators traveled long distances between sessions, the practice has evolved into a contested executive-legislative power.
The Supreme Court's 2014 NLRB v. Noel Canning decision narrowed presidential recess-appointment power: recesses must be at least ten days long (with case-by-case exceptions for unusual circumstances), and the vacancy need not have arisen during the recess but must exist during it. Pro forma sessions — three-minute Senate sessions held to prevent recess — were upheld as effective.
Modern Senates routinely use pro forma sessions to prevent recess appointments, effectively eliminating the power when the opposing party controls the chamber. Recent debates have proposed extending or curtailing the practice, including some proposals to use a House motion to force adjournment.
Proponents of robust recess-appointment power argue that Senate obstruction of nominations has reached unprecedented levels, that the executive branch needs functional leadership, and that the framers intended recess appointments as a remedy for legislative inaction. Opponents argue that pro forma sessions are a constitutionally legitimate Senate procedure and that loosening recess-appointment rules would let presidents circumvent advice-and-consent entirely.