WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court ruled unanimously yesterday that President Obama lacked constitutional authority to make high-level government appointments at a time he declared the Senate in recess and unable to act on the nominations.

According to a report from the Washington Post, Obama made appointments to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in January 2012, at a time when the Senate was holding pro forma sessions every three days precisely to thwart the president’s ability to exercise the power.

“When the Senate declares that it is in session and possesses the capacity, under its own rules, to conduct business,” that is sufficient to keep the president from making recess appointments, Justice Stephen G. Breyer wrote for the court.

The case was a rarity in that the Supreme Court has never had reason to play referee on the issue before and has no precedent to rely on. While the court was unanimous that Obama’s actions were unlawful, it was badly split on other questions the case raised and narrowly favored an expansive view of the chief executive’s power.

When President Obama took office, the membership of the NLRB fell to two members because Senate Republicans blocked votes on the president’s three nominees. Despite the pro forma sessions, Obama took note of the Senate’s declaration that no business would be conducted and made his nominees as recess appointees.

The case, NLRB v. Noel Canning, was brought by a bottling company in Washington state that lost an NLRB ruling, then challenged the legitimacy of the board’s members. A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit went beyond the question of pro forma sessions to severely restrict the president’s power.

“Retailers welcome the Supreme Court ruling today declaring the recess appointments, including those made to the NLRB, to be unconstitutional,” said Bill Hughes, Retail Industry Leaders Association (RILA) executive vice president of government affairs, in a press release. “Harmful decisions made by NLRB have overturned decades of precedent, threatening the flexibility and advancement opportunities that retail employees cherish and the positive shopping experience that consumers demand. The Court’s decision should send a strong message to the NLRB that the rule of law and precedent matter and must be followed.”