JUST IN: Trump threatens to use his constitutional power to "adjourn" the House and Senate so that he can make recess appointments.

The power is listed in Art II, Sec 3:

"[H]e may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper."

In order for this to work, the Republican-controlled Senate would have to move to adjourn ... but the Democratic-controlled House would have to object.

Art I, Sec 5 says:

"Neither House, during the session of Congress, shall, without the consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days."

(That's why they've had pro-forma sessions these past many years.)

The Supreme Court unanimously held in NLRB v Noel Canning (2014) that Obama's recess appointments were invalid, because he made them in spite of the pro forma sessions.

BTW, I'm pretty sure Scalia would not have agreed with Trump on this strategy.

It was his view in Noel Canning that recess appointments clause only applied during "sine die" adjournment, which doesn't happen now until just before the new session... https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/573/513/#tab-opinion-1970974

"I would hold that 'the Recess' is the gap between sessions," Scalia wrote.

(In Hill-speak, a "session" is an entire year's meeting of the House and Senate. Each "Congress" consists of two "sessions.")