## Facts

- Walter Heen was nominated on February 28, 1980, to a vacancy on the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii.
- Confirmation hearings concluded before the Senate recessed on December 16, 1980, but the full Senate did not act on the nomination.
- On December 31, 1980, during the Senate recess, the President appointed Heen under the Recess Appointments Clause; Heen took the oath and served as a district judge.
- On January 21, 1981, the new President withdrew Heen’s pending nomination, but Heen continued serving under his recess commission until the end of the next Senate session.
- On September 18, 1981, Janet Woodley was indicted on three federal narcotics counts.
- Judge Heen denied Woodley’s motion to suppress, conducted a bench trial on stipulated facts, and found Woodley guilty on all counts.
- On appeal, the question whether a recess-appointed district judge could constitutionally preside over the case became central.

## Issues

1. Whether the Recess Appointments Clause authorizes the President to make temporary appointments to Article III judgeships.
2. Whether a recess-appointed district judge may constitutionally exercise the judicial power of the United States despite lacking life tenure and salary protection during the temporary commission.
3. Whether withdrawal of the judge’s nomination invalidated the judge’s authority to adjudicate the defendant’s case.

## Decision

- The en banc Ninth Circuit held that the Recess Appointments Clause applies to judicial offices and permits a recess-appointed federal judge to exercise the judicial power of the United States during the commission’s term.
- The court concluded Judge Heen had authority to decide the suppression motion, conduct the bench trial, and enter judgment.
- The court ruled that withdrawal of Heen’s nomination did not terminate or impair the recess commission.
- The en banc court reversed the prior panel decision that had vacated the conviction and affirmed the district court’s judgment of conviction.

## Legal Principles

- The President’s Article II power to “fill up all Vacancies” during a Senate recess includes vacancies in the federal judiciary.
- Article III tenure and compensation provisions govern the ordinary mode of judicial service but do not bar constitutionally authorized temporary judicial service under a valid recess commission.
- Constitutional interpretation in separation-of-powers disputes considers text, structure, and longstanding historical practice by the political branches as evidence of permissibility.
- A recess commission remains effective until the end of the Senate’s next session; executive withdrawal of a pending nomination, by itself, does not void the commission.
- Courts may raise the validity of a presiding judge’s constitutional authority sua sponte when it affects the court’s power to adjudicate.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit, sitting en banc, upheld the constitutionality of judicial recess appointments and held that a recess-appointed district judge may exercise federal judicial power for the duration of the commission, making the defendant’s conviction valid.


United States v. Woodley, 751 F.2d 1008 (9th Cir. 1985) (en banc)