There is a pervasive assumption that the Supreme Court's ruling in NLRB v. Noel Canning has rendered void the decisions of the Board during the period when it lacked a quorum because a majority of its members held their posts through unconstitutional recess appointments. The assumption is unfounded. The question of remedy for the wrong identified in Noel Canning should not be decided in the air; it should be decided contextually, as one involving whether and how to provide relief to parties affected by a wholly concluded constitutional violation, in a manner that is akin to harmless- and plain-error review.

Publication Date


Journal Title

Virginia Law Review

Document Type


Additional Information

Copyright is owned by the Virginia Law Review Association and the article is used by permission of the Virginia Law Review Association. Abstract available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=2480651