5 U.S.C. § 5503

Recess appointments

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 5 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) Payment 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 in an existing office, if the vacancy existed while the Senate was in session and was by law required to be filled by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, until the appointee has been confirmed by the Senate. This subsection does not apply—(1) if the vacancy arose within 30 days before the end of the session of the Senate;(2) if, at the end of the session, a nomination for the office, other than the nomination of an individual appointed during the preceding recess of the Senate, was pending before the Senate for its advice and consent; or(3) if a nomination for the office was rejected by the Senate within 30 days before the end of the session and an individual other than the one whose nomination was rejected thereafter receives a recess appointment.(b) A nomination to fill a vacancy referred to by paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of subsection (a) of this section shall be submitted to the Senate not later than 40 days after the beginning of the next session of the Senate.(Pub. L. 89–554, Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 475.)

Historical and Revision Notes

Derivation

U.S. Code

Revised Statutes and

Statutes at Large

 

5 U.S.C. 56.

R.S. § 1761.

July 11, 1940, ch. 580, 54 Stat. 751.

Standard changes are made to conform with the definitions applicable and the style of this title as outlined in the preface to the report.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 28 cases, 1977–2018 · leading case: Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Canning, 134 S. Ct. 2550 (2014).
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Canning, 134 S. Ct. 2550 (2014). · cites it 3× “And even where the President and Senate are at odds over politically sensitive appointments, compromise is normally possible.”
Canning v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 705 F.3d 490 (D.C. Cir. 2013). · cites it 3× “” The Evans, Woodley, and Allocco courts all relied on supposed congressional acquiescence in the practice of making recess appointments to offices that were vacant prior to the recess because 5 U.S.C. § 5503 permits payment to such appointees in some circumstances.”
Evans v. Stephens, 387 F.3d 1220 (11th Cir. 2004). · cites it 8× “See 5 U.S.C. § 5503 (1996) (discussing salary requirements for officers appointed to fill a vacancy that existed while Senate was in session).”
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. New Vista Nursing & Rehab., 719 F.3d 203 (3rd Cir. 2013). · cites it 2× “5 U.S.C. § 5503 ; see Evans, 387 F.3d at 1226 ; Woodley, 751 F.”
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Enter. Leasing Co. Se., LLC, 722 F.3d 609 (4th Cir. 2013). · cites it 2× “The Pay Act, originally enacted during the Civil War and currently codified as 5 U.S.C. § 5503 , provides for the payment of salaries to recess appointees who fill vacancies that first arise while the Senate is in session.”
United States v. Janet Woodley, 751 F.2d 1008 (9th Cir. 1985). · cites it 2× “5 U.S.C. § 5503 ; see also S.Res. 334, 86th Cong.”
Staebler v. Carter, 464 F. Supp. 585 (D.D.C. 1979). · cites it 2× “The Recess Appointments Clause was first drafted in Hamilton’s plan of government, adopted upon motion of Richard Spaight of North Carolina, and left unchanged by the Committee of Style.”
Dennis v. Luis, 741 F.2d 628 (3rd Cir. 1984). · cites it 3× “3 and 5 U.S.C. § 5503 combined, which provide: Art.”
Kopp v. Schrader, 187 A.3d 88 (Md. 2018). “It is not unusual for a legislative body to enforce a constitutional advice and consent role through the exercise of its fiscal powers.”
Wilkinson v. Legal Servs. Corp., 865 F. Supp. 891 (D.D.C. 1994). “646 (1863), currently codified at 5 U.S.C. § 5503 (1982). With certain limitations, this Act prohibits payment of money from the Treasury to recess appointees when the vacancy to which they were appointed existed while Congress was in session.”
Baney v. Dep't of Just., 263 F. App'x 892 (Fed. Cir. 2008). “5 U.S.C. § 5503 (c). The only issue in this appeal is whether the Board correctly interpreted section 6323(b) to disqualify voluntary service from leave under that section.”
Asatov v. Dep't of Labor, 542 F. App'x 930 (Fed. Cir. 2013). “5 U.S.C. § 5503 (c); see also Hayes v. Dep’t of the Navy, 727 F.”
— 5 U.S.C. § 5503(a) — 1 case
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.