Ten Theories of What Noel Canning was About

Last week, the Supreme Court decided National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning (formerly known as National Labor Relations Board v. Canning). If you read any legal blogs or news sources, you've probably heard about the case (For coverage reacting to the opinion, see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. For commentary from before the opinion was released, see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.)

Some people have told me that the Court struck down several presidential appointments because they were made during shorter, intra-session recesses of the Senate, rather than during recesses between sessions. But to me, that seems to be too dull and narrow of an issue to warrant the intensive coverage this case has received. 

To try to account for this case's prominence, here are some of my theories of what the Court really decided in Noel Canning. If your friends ask you what the case was about and you don't want to bore them, feel free to use any or all of these answers.

• Whether Obama can run for a third term as President.
• Whether Congress has the authority under the Commerce Clause to abolish the Rule Against Perpetuities
• Whether Ted Cruz is a natural-born citizen.
• Whether the Department of Education can unilaterally require all public high school students to read Thomas Piketty's Capital in the Twenty-First Century before graduating.
• Whether Marlins fans' intentional infliction of emotional distress lawsuits arising form another fan's extreme and outrageous dance moves are barred by the "baseball rule."
• Whether Justin Bieber should be deported.
• Whether any or all members of the House and Senate leadership are guilty of battery as a result of offensive touching.
• Whether the presence of hipsters on a jury violates the Sixth Amendment.
• Whether John Boehner has standing to sue President Obama.
• Whether courts violate the Second Amendment when they classify firing Howitzers as an abnormally dangerous activity for which defendants are strictly liable.