The Third Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers parts of Delaware, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, ruled 2-1 that President Obama violated the constitution’s separation of powers when he recess-appointed Democrat Craig Becker to the NLRB in March 2010.

“We hold that the ‘the Recess of the Senate,’ in the Recess Appointments Clause refers to only intersession breaks,” the ruling states. “As a consequence, we conclude that the National Labor Relations Board panel below lacked the requisite number of members [three] to exercise the Board’s authority.”

The ruling stems from a disputed union election that occurred at a New Jersey nursing home. The NLRB denied the nursing home’s motion that the board illegitimately forced the company to recognize unionized managers. The Appeals Court ruled that the board did not have the authority to dismiss the motion because of the recess appointments.

The Third Circuit is not the first federal court to declare Obama’s recess appointments to the NLRB unconstitutional. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned an NLRB ruling in January because Obama unconstitutionally recess appointed Democrats Sharon Block and Richard Griffin while the Senate was still in session.

The D.C. Circuit is now considering a number of appeals to other NLRB rulings putting 910 rulings the board has issued since the recess appointments at risk of being overturned. The board has continued to operate in the face of the legal challenge, issuing more than 200 additional rulings since the D.C. Circuit declared it unconstitutional.

The House of Representatives passed a package of bills to prevent further board rulings until the Senate has confirmed three nominees. President Obama vowed to veto the legislation.

The Third Circuit ruling came the same day the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee took up the nominations of Griffin and Block, as well as three other nominees, to sit on the board. The board members argued that the D.C. Circuit stood alone in its decision and that they would not step down until the Supreme Court weighed in on the legitimacy of the appointments.

“The NLRB has functioned in the wake on constitutional challenges [in the past],” Democratic board Chairman Mark Gaston Pearce told the committee, referring to a Depression Era challenge to board authority. “We owe it to the public to continue to work.”

Ranking Republican Sen. Lamar Alexander (R., Tenn.) informed the committee of the Third Circuit’s decision as he explained his opposition to the candidates.

“The D.C. Circuit isn’t the only one; the Third Circuit this morning issued an opinion agreeing with them,” he said. “This point of disturbing end-arounds around congress is why I cannot support the nominations of these two [Block and Griffin].”

Labor watchdogs expressed support for the judges’ decisions, adding that it builds momentum for the upcoming Supreme Court case.

“Today, another federal appeals court has invalidated one of President Barack Obama’s so-called ‘recess appointments’ to the National Labor Relations Board,” said Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “As National Right to Work Foundation attorneys have argued in several courts, the Obama ‘recess appointments’ have clearly violated the U.S. Constitution. Today’s decision is a victory for independent-minded workers who have received unjust treatment at the hands of the pro-forced unionism NLRB over the last few years.”

The federal government has appealed the D.C. Appeals Court ruling to the Supreme Court.

Tom Perez, who now heads the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division, passed out of committee along a party line vote, 12-10.

Committee Chairman Sen. Tom Harkin (D., Iowa) championed Perez through the process and accused the GOP of “pointless obstructionism” for twice delaying the committee vote.

“Mr. Perez has been as open and aboveboard as he could possibly be with this committee,” he said. “Mr. Perez did his job at DOJ, and he did it well.”

Republicans delayed the vote after Perez failed to comply with a House oversight investigation into his use of private email addresses to conduct government business. His refusal led ranking Oversight Democrat Rep. Elijah Cummings (D., Md.) to join Oversight Chairman Darrell Issa (R., Calif.) in calling for Perez to turn over the emails.

Ranking Republican Sen. Lamar Alexander (R., Tenn.) issued a blistering opening statement explaining his opposition. He accused Perez of “wheeling and dealing … in a way that is inappropriate for an assistant attorney general.”

“My review of his record has raised troubling questions,” he said. “I believe it’s premature (to move forward).”

Perez faces a tough confirmation process even with committee approval. Several Republicans, including Sen. David Vitter (R., La.) and Sen. Chuck Grassley (R., Iowa), have vowed to oppose the nomination, citing several controversial decisions Perez made while at the DOJ.

The Oversight Committee released a report in April alleging that Perez had orchestrated a quid pro quo with St. Paul, Minn., to protect a dubious legal doctrine that makes it easier to sue for racial discrimination. Emails revealed that Perez considered this a “top priority” and urged career attorneys to withdraw support from a $200 million whistleblower suit against the city.

Perez told the committee that the whistleblower suit lacked merit and that the city, rather than the DOJ, was responsible for the deal.

“Bad facts make bad law,” he said in a contentious April committee hearing.

He has also faced criticism for his handling of racial issues at the DOJ. A March inspector general report revealed Perez asserted that civil rights protections did not cover white voters. His approach to racial issues alienated some career DOJ attorneys.

He is the “most extreme cabinet nominee in 70 years,” DOJ whistleblower J. Christian Adams told the Washington Free Beacon in March.

Adams resigned his position with the Civil Rights Division after the office withdrew voter intimidation charges against two members of the New Black Panther Party who brandished weapons outside of a Philadelphia polling place in 2008.

Perez will be Obama’s sole Latino cabinet member if confirmed. Hispanic and union activists pressured lawmakers to pass him through “without delay” at a Wednesday afternoon press conference.

Perez’s nomination will move to the full Senate sometime in the next few months.

Perez, Obama’s nominee to head the Labor Department, has come under fire for failing to respond to congressional requests for information pertaining to an alleged quid pro quo he orchestrated that cost taxpayer up to $200 million.

“We sent the message in November in 2012 and we are ready to send another message in 2014 and in 2016,” CASA de Maryland executive director Gustavo Torres said at a press conference at La Raza headquarters.

Perez served as president of the board of CASA, a nonprofit group that helps legal and illegal immigrants find work. CASA members echoed their leader’s message on a march from the St. Regis Hotel, located two blocks from the White House, to La Raza’s building located four blocks from the White House.

“We are not one; we are thousands. If you can count, count us wisely,” they chanted in Spanish amid a sea of pre-made placards saying, “We’ll Remember Who Stands with Tom Perez” and “Latino Voters for Perez.”

Twelve people in red CASA shirts marched up 16th Street and greeted about 18 men and women in suits at La Raza’s headquarters, whereupon organizers handed seven media outlets a letter signed by 49 Hispanic interest groups.

Angel Aviles, an El Salvadoran construction worker who brought his three-year-old son Diego to the rally, said he was supporting Perez though struggled to give reasons why.

“It’s good; I’m not sure why … I don’t know. It’s the first time I’m here. I came for Luis,” he said, pointing to a friend in a CASA shirt.

Sophie, a four-year-old girl in a navy sundress, struggled to support a sign against the breeze. She attended the rally with her mother.

“I guess to support Tom Perez, to show Hispanic people are humans,” Sophie’s mother, who did not give her name, told the Washington Free Beacon as the press conference began.

Representatives from the various letter signatories mounted the podium to condemn Republicans for twice delaying Perez’s Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee confirmation vote. Speakers repeatedly referred to Perez as “our champion” and “our friend,” adding, “An attack on Tom Perez is an attack on the Latino community.”

“Tom Perez is a respected and loved member of the Hispanic community,” La Raza president Janet Murguía said. “We are united in outrage. … Make no mistake right now, this nominee is being disrespected and we as the Latino Community are watching very closely.”

Murguía repeatedly insisted Perez had “made a good faith effort to answer questions” regarding the reason for the delays—an alleged quid pro quo Perez orchestrated as the Department of Justice’s chief civil rights enforcement officer. He allegedly helped dismiss a $200 million whistleblower lawsuit against St. Paul, Minn., after the city dropped a Supreme Court case that threatened to derail a racial discrimination legal theory Perez supports.

The House Oversight Committee has repeatedly asked Perez for private emails that he used to conduct government business. He has not complied. Democratic Rep. Elijah Cummings (D., Md.) sent Perez a letter last week requesting the documents.

Murguía dismissed the bipartisan demands for Perez to cooperate with the St. Paul investigation.

“If there’s a member, especially a Democrat, who still wants answers then we can do that later in confirmation—there’s no reason he can’t exit the committee,” she said. “There may be good faith concerns [about the confirmation], but we believe, on substance, that one case should not define his entire career.”

Murguía said Perez’s nomination is an especially hot topic for Hispanic special interests because Obama did not nominate other minorities to high-ranking positions.

“We are disappointed that President Obama did not nominate more [Hispanics] to the highest positions in his administration,” she said. “We just think a cabinet should be as diverse and representative as this country.”

The Senate HELP committee will vote on Perez’s nomination on Thursday.

The department’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) issued a February guidance letter made public in April saying that labor union officials could participate in safety inspections at the request of an employee even if the employer is non-union.

“A person affiliated with a union without a collective bargaining agreement or with a community representative can act on behalf of employees as a walkaround representative so long as the individual has been authorized by the employees to serve as their representative,” wrote OSHA Deputy Assistant Secretary Richard E. Fairfax.

OSHA conducts thousands of inspections on workplaces across the country every year, focusing particularly on the manufacturing sector. Employees are entitled to select an observer to accompany OSHA investigators on the inspections.

While union shops often select stewards to represent them, non-union workers select an employee to join the “walkaround.” The new OSHA interpretation would allow outside parties, such as union representatives, to enter the workplace for the first time.

Bill Principe, an attorney and workplace safety expert at Constangy, Brooks, & Smith, called the move a “very significant departure from 40 years of [OSHA] practices,” pointing to the fact that the regulation “specifically says that the representative shall be an employee.”

“I’ve been doing this a while and I’ve never seen a situation where an OSHA officer or employee thought about bringing in someone from outside [the company],” he said. “This interpretation came out of left field.”

Some labor watchdogs say that the interpretation is a Trojan horse, intended to help union officials gain entry into a workplace they would normally be excluded from without majority support from workers.

“They’re carrying the water of the big union bosses,” said Glenn Taubman, an attorney with the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. “They know that union organizing is in decline and are trying to help the unions get in any way they can. It’s part of the same regulatory scheme of the Obama administration to strangle employers and reward unions by making it easier to organize.”

Fairfax issued the interpretation in response to a clarification request from a representative with the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union.

The regulation allows for third party experts, such as industrial hygienist or safety engineers to visit the site, but no mention is made of labor groups. Fairfax couched his interpretation in vague terms and extended the third-party language to unions.

Principe, the labor attorney, said such queries are common, but not solicited “without [the questioner] already knowing the answer.”

“We’re not really talking about hygienists; that’s not the intent from a practical perspective. It’s a union rep asking,” he said. “The letter is pretty straightforward.”

Fairfax has since retired, according to an OSHA official. He could not be reached for comment.

OSHA spokesman Jesse Lawder denied that the interpretation departed from previous understanding of labor regulations because the field operations manual allows for third party inspections.

“OSHA expects that this clarification will have little impact,” he said. “Having a walkaround representative is an important, longstanding right for workers to get an effective and thorough inspection.”

Principe and other labor attorneys disagreed, pointing out that such language has referred to union shops, rather than non-union workplaces.

Principe said that the new interpretation’s vagueness could “cause lengthy delays” on inspections, especially the hundreds of surprise visits OSHA makes every year.

The letter does not make clear how many employees are required to request a union representative before one must be called. The OSHA investigator would then have to make a spot decision about how to proceed or call regional or national attorneys to decipher the rule.

“Presumably under this interpretation, any employee could say ‘well I want a union rep to accompany OSHA,’ even if it’s just on behalf of himself,” he said.

Employers who want to avoid union proselytizing through safety inspections would be left with little recourse other than rejecting a safety inspection and asking OSHA investigators to obtain a warrant before entering the premises with union officials, according to Principe.

OSHA does not have to post its response to letters on the website, according to Principe, and when it does, “it’s making a point.” The department hammered that point home when it edited a 2003 OSHA advisory that presented a contradictory, but traditional, interpretation of walkarounds.

“This is an OSHA Archive Document, and may no longer represent OSHA Policy. It is presented here as historical content, for research and review purposes only,” the site now says.

Principe’s Constangy, Brooks, & Smith colleague, labor relations expert David Phippen, said the issue extends beyond the practical implications on an inspection site. The interpretation could allow union officials onto a site without having the approval of a company’s workers.

“OSHA avoids the main point that that representative has never been elected by majority of employees in a proper NLRB election,” he said. “It’s sticking their nose into something they don’t have representative status in.”

Three companies had sued the NLRB on the grounds that it did not have the authority to rule on labor disputes. The motion of consolidation issued by the judges will combine the suits and allow them to move forward with oral arguments scheduled for September.

Glenn Taubman, a lawyer with the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, hailed the victory as another step forward to restoring balance in labor disputes.

“The [employer] petitions will shut the board down in these respective cases,” he said. “It won’t necessarily shut down the board entirely, but it provides a roadmap for everyone to get the NLRB out of their cases.”

The NLRB serves as an arbiter in labor disputes and oversees labor practices and unionism throughout the country.

Numerous legal challenges to the board’s ability to issue rulings emerged after the D.C. Court of Appeals ruled in January that President Barack Obama’s recess appointments of union lawyers Richard Griffin and Sharon Block were unconstitutional. The NLRB has pledged to continue issuing rulings until the Supreme Court weighs in on the issue.

The board’s defiance drew harsh criticism from Republicans on Capitol Hill.

The House of Representatives passed legislation to shut down the board in April. That bill is unlikely to pass the Senate and would likely be vetoed by Obama.

Taubman said the D.C. circuit provides the quickest route to halting the operation of the constitutionally dubious board. He praised the court for “no longer sitting on their hands, waiting for the Supreme Court.”

“This law was settled in the D.C. circuit,” he said. “It’s your decision, it’s good law issued by your circuit, now it’s time to take your decision seriously and enforce it.”

The ruling came the same day a separate D.C. appeals court panel tossed out a NLRB ruling that forced employers to post notices informing workers of their right to unionize while leaving out information about their right to opt out of union dues. The NLRB decided companies that did not put up the signs could be charged with unfair labor practices and punished by the board. The court ruled that the punishment infringed on an employers’ freedom of speech.

“The court decided that the right to free speech includes the right to be silent, in this case by not putting up a sign; the government was trying to force companies to speak [the government’s] views,” said David Phippen, a labor attorney with Constangy, Brooks, and Smith. “NLRB had never done anything like that to all employers before.”

The NLRB had unilaterally decided that it had the regulatory authority to order nearly every American workplace to put up the posters. Two of the three appeals court justices questioned this authority.

“Congress never gave [the NLRB] the power to do this,” Taubman said. “The posting rule was just a way to get more employees into the unions at the behest of Obama and the big union bosses.”

Taubman said the NLRB’s inability to successfully defend their rulings in appeals courts, as well as the legal challenges to its authority, cast serious doubts on its integrity.

“There is a huge, huge legitimacy problem here; every decision is suspect,” he said. “Everybody knows there’s a cloud hanging over this board; it’s never been held in lower esteem.”

According to McAuliffe’s most recent campaign filing, unions have donated $562,030 to his campaign in direct and in-kind contributions.

The American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees, the Service Employees International Union, the Communications Workers of America, and others have chipped in.

McAuliffe’s Republican opponent, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, warned on Thursday that McAuliffe may look to repeal recently passed measures that preserve ballot secrecy in union elections and keep members’ personal information private.

Unions “are talking about how they want McAuliffe to ‘repair some of the things’ Republicans have done,” said campaign spokeswoman Anna Nix in a news release.

“Do they mean ending Virginia’s status as a right-to-work state?” Nix asked in the release. “Or repealing the Secret Ballot Protection Act, which guarantees the right to vote by secret ballot? Or the KEEP Secure Act that prevents third party groups from obtaining workers’ personal information?”

The latter two pieces of legislation were authored by Virginia Republican state delegate Barbara Comstock, who said in an interview she is concerned McAuliife would advance union interests in Richmond.

“I definitely see a risk” to Virginia’s right-to-work status under McAuliffe, Comstock said.  “Democrats pay lip service to that” but they “always vote in lock step with the unions,” she added.

“It doesn’t matter whether it’s good policy, they do what the unions want,” Comstock said of her Democratic colleagues in the Virginia legislature. “There’s no reason to think that [McAuliffe] has some different view than they do.”

Comstock expressed concern about potential McAuliffe opposition to the KEEP Secure Act, which prevents unions from accessing workers’ personal information, and the Secret Ballot Protection Act, which aims to preserve workplace democracy. Unions opposed both measures, raising concerns their favored candidate might as well.

“That’s how [Virginia Democrats] view it—‘I’m here to help my union guys get jobs,’” Comstock said.

Other observers are less convinced McAuliffe would work to advance unions’ interests on the legislative front.

“Labor is supporting McAuliffe because union groups view him as the candidate who is unlikely to attempt to further roll back labor-preferred laws and policies,” said Geoff Skelley, a spokesman for the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics.

But “it seems unlikely that he would focus too much attention on major labor initiatives,” Skelley said, given Republican control of the state legislature.

There are union-supportive measures the governor can take that don’t involve legislation, Skelley noted.

“In areas where the executive has jurisdiction, unions anticipate McAuliffe would be friendlier to their interests than Cuccinelli would be,” he said. “Appointments and resolving contract disputes would be two areas where McAuliffe could exert his gubernatorial power to side with labor.”

The Laborers International Union of North America (LiUNA), which has contributed $25,000 to McAuliffe’s campaign, has been fighting to enact a project labor agreement, which would give preference to contractors that use union labor, for construction work on the Dulles rail corridor.

Republican Gov. Bob McDonnell clashed with the Metropolitan Washington Airport Authority (MWAA), which oversees the Dulles rail project, when he called for MWAA board member Dennis Martire to step down due to his ties to the LiUNA, which represented workers on the first phase of the project.

The McAuliffe campaign did not respond to a request for comment.

Republicans challenged the nominee over his record as head of civil rights enforcement at the Department of Justice. Sen. Lamar Alexander (R., Tenn.), ranking Republican on the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, questioned Perez’s commitment to “protecting the rights of whistleblowers.”

“Allegations have been made that Mr. Perez intervened in the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Department of Justice and urged them to drop support of a whistleblower case that could have returned $200 million to the taxpayers,” Alexander said.

According to a report released by the House Oversight Committee on Sunday, Perez dropped the lucrative whistleblower case after the city of St. Paul, Minn., withdrew a Supreme Court appeal that threatened to undermine a legal precedent that makes it easier to file racial discrimination suits. Perez claims St. Paul approached the department first about tying the cases together and the department acted ethically in the exchange.

“Bad facts make bad laws,” Perez said. “My understanding … is that (the whistleblower suit) was a weak case and a weak candidate for intervention.”

Alexander objected to Perez getting involved in the two cases that were not “your business.”

“That seems to me an extraordinary amount of wheeling and dealing outside the responsibility of the assistant attorney general for civil rights,” Alexander said. “You have a duty to protect the taxpayer money, to protect the whistleblower … you’re manipulating the legal process in a way that is inappropriate.”

“The decision made in this case was in the best interest of the U.S.,” Perez responded. “This decision was not made by Tom Perez, it was made by seasoned career [department attorneys].”

Committee members also took the nominee to task for his role in the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case. The Department of Justice dropped the charges against two Panthers who brandished weapons outside a Philadelphia polling place in 2008. An inspector general report released in March revealed Perez interpreted voting rights laws to not apply to white citizens.

South Carolina Republican Sen. Tim Scott, who is black, asked Perez whether he created a “politically charged” environment at the Department of Justice.

“Your management style seems not to be open, not to be fair, not to be balanced, to have a political bias,” Scott said.

“I have always been open and fair,” Perez said. “I have always adopted a management style … that applies facts to the law.”

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R., Utah) also criticized a brief written by Perez’s division that would have prevented churches from firing ministers who openly disagreed with a church’s religious doctrine.

“Had your argument won the day, the federal government would be able to interfere in the selection of ministers. The Supreme Court not only unanimously rejected your position, it called it untenable,” Hatch said. “Why did you take such an extreme position?”

Perez dodged the question, saying, “The government acknowledged that hiring exemptions … have been enjoyed for decades.”

“[Our brief] didn’t seek hostility to religious organizations,” he said. “We will respect [the Supreme Court].”

Sen. Ben Cardin (D., Md.) introduced the nominee on Thursday, defending his record at the Department of Justice and as labor secretary for the state of Maryland.

“We know his commitment to fairness,” he said. “We all know the civil rights division had major problems … he has an incredible record of restoring integrity to civil rights division.”

Committee chairman Tom Harkin (D., Iowa) also commended Perez for his “vision” for the office and his integrity, adding, “Any allegations to the contrary are unfounded.”

Democrats also touted his background as the child of Dominican immigrants during the introduction.

“He knows what the American dream is, and he knows what hard work is and he knows that we need a ladder of opportunity,” said Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D., Md.). “His story is the story of America.”

Several GOP lawmakers, including Sen. Chuck Grassley (R., Iowa) and Sen. David Vitter (R., La.) have said they are opposed to the nomination.

Labor watchdogs said the GOP is applying an appropriate level of scrutiny to Perez’s record, as the department will oversee several important aspects of President Obama’s second term agenda, including minimum wage laws and union regulations.

“Thomas Perez stands to inherit a Department of Labor that is far too cozy with the labor unions it’s supposed to regulate,” said Rick Berman, executive director of the Center for Union Facts. “The Senate needs to gauge whether Perez intends to continue this partisan activism or whether he will represent the interests of employees.”

Perez said he is committed to “jobs, jobs, and jobs” adding that government should help drive recovery through wage laws, worker training, and regulation of businesses.

“Business will always be the prime generator of good jobs,” he said. “At the same time, government can be a force multiplier … job safety and job creation are not mutually exclusive.”

The committee will meet again next Thursday to discuss the nomination.

Tom Perez will appear before the Senate’s Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee to answer questions about labor policy. He is also expected to be asked about the controversy that has plagued his tenure as the head of the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division.

Lawmakers are calling on Sen. Lamar Alexander (R., Tenn.), ranking Republican on the committee, and others in the minority to shed some light on Perez’s record during the hearing.

“Mr. Perez will have a lot of questions to answer this week as the Senate considers his nomination,” Grassley said on Sunday. “Not only was he the ringleader of the quid pro quo deal that ensured the taxpayer would not be able to recover hundreds of millions of dollars, but he has been misleading and less than forthcoming with our committees and the U.S. Civil Rights Commission.”

The House Oversight Committee released a report Sunday that revealed Perez allegedly tossed out a $200 million fraud lawsuit against the city of St. Paul, Minn., in exchange for the city dropping a separate lawsuit that was heading to the Supreme Court.

Oversight chairman Darryl Issa (R., Calif.) said Perez was concerned the high court would use the city’s suit to throw out the constitutionally dubious legal doctrine of disparate impact, which makes it easier for minorities to sue for discrimination.

“’Disparate impact’ is found where an employer’s neutral practice has more of a negative effect on members of a certain group protected by the federal anti-discrimination laws,” said Robin Shea, a labor attorney with Constangy, Brooks, and Smith. “For example, a pre-employment test that is administered to all applicants but has a statistically significant difference in failure rates based on the race of the applicant could be said to have a ‘disparate impact’ on members of that racial group.”

The Supreme Court dealt disparate impact a blow in 2009 when it ruled in favor of several white and Hispanic firefighters who were denied promotions despite passing officers exams. The city of New Haven threw out the test results because too few black firefighters received passing grades.

Perez has also been accused of suggesting civil rights laws do not apply to white people.

The department declined to prosecute two members of the New Black Panther Party who brandished weapons at a Philadelphia polling place during the 2008 election.

Perez said voting rights laws did “not cover white citizens,” according to an inspector general report released in March.

J. Christian Adams, who resigned his post at the Civil Rights Division in protest of the Black Panther case, called Perez the “most extreme cabinet appointee in 70 years.”

“People like Perez are very skillful at creatively ignoring the law to suit their own ends,” Adams told the Washington Free Beacon in March.

Perez’s record on the case has inspired opposition from other Republican senators. Sen. David Vitter (R., La.) pledged to block the nomination when it was announced.

“Thomas Perez’s record should be met with great suspicion by my colleagues for his spotty work related to the New Black Panther case, but Louisianians most certainly should have cause for concern about this nomination,” Vitter said.

Prior to joining the Department of Justice, Perez headed CASA de Maryland, an immigration group that helps legal and illegal immigrants find jobs, before becoming the Maryland secretary of labor.

He served as a vital union ally in the latter post, according to multiple union leaders who spoke with the Washington Free Beacon.

“He performed great as secretary of labor for the state of Maryland,” said Maryland-D.C. AFL-CIO president Fred Mason. “The sense of fairness that exists in most people is what Perez epitomizes … he has consistently demonstrated that.”

Perez helped pass bills at the state and local level that give unions an advantage in contract bidding by driving up costs for competitors, which in turn drives up the cost for taxpayers. Obama has made wage issues a centerpiece of his second term, stepping up regulations on wages for government contractors and pushing for a 24 percent minimum wage hike.

Some of the nation’s leading labor attorneys have expressed trepidation about Perez’s nomination, citing his expected support for proposed regulations, which could make it harder for employers to seek outside help to persuade workers to maintain a union-free workplace.

“Mr. Perez can be expected to support organized labor on new labor persuader regulations … expected any day now and keep the DOL’s Wage and Hour Division pushing that office forward,” one attorney told the Free Beacon on condition of anonymity. “I would not see any nominee from President Obama having a different view.”

Perez’s nomination is expected to reach the Senate floor next week should he make it through committee.

But I stood alone: a coward, a fraud.

I arrived at Capitol Hill’s West Lawn on Wednesday afternoon to attend the Rally For Citizenship, which claimed to draw “more than 100,000 immigrant families and their supporters.” I was no mere citizen partaking in a rally, however. I was press. At least that’s what the 5-by-3 inch card dangling from my black lanyard told me.

Except I wasn’t press. Not really. I didn’t have the documents. The Citizen-Now.org website made clear the requirements: “To pick up credentials, press [sic] each registrant must provide photo identification AND a current, valid press ID issued by federal, state, or local government OR a letter from your editor / producer, on letterhead, from a bona fide journalism outlet … those without proper identification will not be admitted.”

I had sent in an application for credentials on Tuesday with the help of a flack. She assured me I could pick up credentials. I had the white and green card issued by Virginia Capitol Police to ensure lawmakers that I was press. But that badge was issued in 2011, before I joined the Washington Free Beacon. It had now expired.

“Misuse of this card constitutes a violation of Section 18.2-204.2 of the Code of Virginia,” it says on the back. So not only was I betraying the trust of the rally organizers, I also could be breaking the law. I balked at presenting the ID to the Capitol policemen guarding the press entrance and opted to proceed through the crowd, a hodge-podge of union members and immigrant families.

“Coming up, coming up, excuse me, I’m press,” a man with a gray blazer draped over his arm declared, brushing aside anyone who stood in his way. He noticed my notebook.

“You press?”

“Yes,” I gulped, following his lead. This man was bona fide, NBC all the way. My coyote. He threw up the rope separating the rabble from the PRESS and ushered me forward. He vanished before I could thank him, leaving me alone at check-in.

“McMorris, here you go,” a volunteer said, dropping the lanyard into my shocked, shaking hands.

“You don’t need my ID, my credentials?” I asked, averting eye contact.

“I trust you,” she said.

Being an undocumented reporter alters the way you cover a story. When my colleagues swarmed Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D., Ill.), I stood in the background, transcribing earth-shattering responses to hard-hitting questions.

“This is one of the make-or-break weeks,” he said, when asked if this was a make-or-break week for Congress.

Gutierrez shared the stage with the rally’s sponsors: presidents of powerful labor unions, including SEIU and UAW, as well as representatives of CASA de Maryland, a nonprofit group that helps immigrants and day-laborers find jobs regardless of immigration status. President Barack Obama tapped former CASA president Tom Perez to head the Department of Labor in March.

Gustavo Torres, president of CASA in Action, fired up the crowd with chants of “Si Se Puede” while SEIU president Mary Kay Henry, UAW president Bob King, and National Education Association vice president Lily Eskelsen rambled on in Spanish.

“We’re going to demand that all workers, immigrant workers, and American workers have collective bargaining rights,” King said to crickets, before adding “Hasta la victoria” to raucous cheers.

Organizers have worked hard to improve the optics of the immigration reform movement. Gone are the days of Mexican flags and Che shirts at rallies. They encouraged attendees to wear or carry at least one piece of patriotic paraphernalia. Several attendees wore American flag button-downs and shorts; most wore white shirts that, one attendee explained, “represented peace.” Four Colombian immigrants I met at the Capitol South Metro stop carried a bag filled with small American flags. They declined an interview because “No English.”

“It just shows us how American the 11 million undocumented workers that live in this country really are,” a nurse in the crowd said.

Attendees were also told to wear red, white, and blue to hammer the point home. Many opted to hammer the point with soccer jerseys. Honduran and Salvadoran national uniforms seemed to be the most popular, along with Real Madrid. The jerseys fulfilled the white and blue requirement, but lacked the red. I asked one Salvadoran teenager to explain his color scheme to me, as a tarp of Central and South American flags stitched together with the stars and stripes passed over our heads. He pointed to his fading orange shoelaces.

Union representatives stood at various Metro exits to provide members with union colors.

A woman wearing an orange vest waved the yellow and purple of SEIU one block from the Capitol South Metro, as a black colleague called for members of 32BJ, the D.C. local, to sign in. Signing the green sheet had its advantages. While a third woman distributed stickers saying “TODOS JUNTOS PARA EL 10 DE ABRIL” to any passersby, members received a purple SEIU t-shirt, as well as a handkerchief to deal with the 80-degree heat.

“You’re doing a good job, hand everything away,” the man said to the third woman. “Any members?”

“No members yet,” she replied.

A man wearing a camouflage backpack approached.

“You a union member? Where you from?” the man asked.

“El Salvador,” he said, winking. He took a 32BJ button as a consolation prize.

My guilt over my undocumented status only grew when I entered the expanse of the press pen. Attendee Aquila Alice Dixon beckoned me with a hard stare and gap-toothed smile, her body testing the tethered ropes organizers used to separate immigrant families from press.

“This is wrong,” she said. “They have no jurisdiction over us. We’re free; we should be able to go wherever we want.”

A toddler to our left crossed the media line and began plucking grass from the West Lawn. His age was a dead give-away: Not only was he not press, he didn’t have a drivers license.

I made my way back into the crowd when John Boardman of UNITE HERE Local 25, which represents 5,000 D.C. hotel and service workers, noticed my badge.

“Labor has been at the forefront of this issue and all civil rights for decades,” he said. “We see what all people see and that’s individuals who contribute, who pay taxes and work hard. To keep them in the shadows hurts the fabric of our country.”

I asked him if the rally would have been better served by inviting Republicans who support immigration reform such as Florida Sen. Marco Rubio and Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul.

“The GOP has come to this issue from a different perspective, from practical politics,” he said. “They realized that they weren’t going to survive.”

Congressional Republicans are not the only ones who realized that. Labor groups have opposed immigration reform in the past on the grounds that it disadvantaged native workers. Half a decade ago, some of the most powerful unions at the rally had come out against George W. Bush’s push for amnesty.

But UNITE HERE and SEIU have seen membership grow by organizing immigrants in the service sector, while traditional labor unions, including the AFL-CIO and UAW, have hemorrhaged members in recent years.

“Did your organizing success have anything to do with other unions coming around on immigration despite past opposition?” I asked.

“People have different perspectives, but it is well known that all of labor now is coalescing around this issue,” he said.

Labor was not the only Democratic constituency to rally behind legalization. Environmentalists say it will stop global warming. A gay advocate took the stage on behalf of “hundreds of thousands of gay, lesbian, and transgendered” immigrants, who live not only in the shadows, but also inside closets within the shadows. A few feminists carried signs proclaiming, “Immigration Reform is Central to Woman’s Equality.”

Reform is evidently the cure for all that ails us, a help to a tired nation, or at least a help to those who lectured from the podium.

“We delivered the votes that delivered Nevada and Colorado and Nuevo Mexico … to the Democratic Party,” Rep. Gutierrez told the rally.

His message was clear. Even to an undocumented reporter like myself.