By Lawrence Hurley
WASHINGTON, Feb 6 (Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court on
Wednesday denied a nursing home operator’s emergency stay
application that sought to seize upon legal confusion over
President Barack Obama’s appointments to the National Labor
Relations Board.
The court order stated the application had been denied. It
offered no further explanation.
HealthBridge Management LLC had wanted the court to stay a
federal district court’s preliminary injunction issued in
December that required the company, which operates nursing homes
in Connecticut, to reinstate striking workers while the National
Labor Relations Board (NLRB) considers the employees’ complaint.
The almost 700 workers have cited unfair labor practices at
HealthBridge-managed facilities.
HealthBridge first filed its request on Monday with Justice
Ruth Bader Ginsburg but she rejected it, without comment, within
hours. The company’s lawyers then asked Justice Antonin Scalia
to consider the application, which the company could do under
court procedures.
Wednesday’s order said Scalia referred the matter to the
full nine-member court. The order said one of the nine, Justice
Samuel Alito, had not participated. The court does not say why
justices stay out of certain cases, but in this instance it is
likely because Alito’s sister Rosemary was one of the lawyers
representing HealthBridge.
The legal uncertainty over Obama’s appointments to the NLRB
relate to a Jan. 25 ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit that three appointments Obama made
to the NLRB last year were invalid.
The court said the president did not have the authority to
make the three “recess appointments,” a term used to describe a
means of circumventing the Senate confirmation process, because
the Senate was not technically in recess at the time.
The ruling meant that the NLRB does not have the required
quorum to make decisions, casting into doubt its actions and
rulings since the appointments were made in January 2012.
In the stay application, HealthBridge’s attorney Paul
Clement said the court should intervene now because it is likely
to review the appeals court decision in due course anyway.
(Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; Editing by Howard Goller and
Philip Barbara)
