The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held that the President made invalid "recess appointments" to the National Labor Relations Board in January 2012. The Senate declared itself in recess for three-day periods during that month. The President then appointed three out of five members to the NLRB.
The Court's judgment - that the recess appointments were invalid - is unanimous. But only 5 out of 9 justices joined the majority opinion, written by Justice Breyer (joined by Justices Kennedy, Kagan, Sotomayor, and Ginsburg), Four justices, led by Justice Scalia (with Justices Thomas, CJ Roberts, and Alito), issued a separate opinion, disagreeing with the majority's conclusions regarding when recess appointments are valid.
This opinion is over 50 pages long, and it is mostly devoted to the history of the Constitution's recess appointments clause, and the way it has been used historically. The upshot, however, is that the President has a lot of power to make recess appointments, but there has to be a sufficiently long recess. Moreover, the house of Congress that is controlled by the political party not in power may re-call the Congress from recess and thwart recess appointments. Checks and balances.
Because the appointments were invalid, the NLRB operated without a quorum for several months. As a result, hundreds of decisions are invalid. It remains to be seen precisely what the NLRB will do with those decisions. The Board currently has a full compliment of members. Therefore, recent decisions issued since the Senate confirmed the 5 members will be valid and enforceable. We will update what happens next when we find out.
This case is National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning and the opinion is here.