`
`Nos. 19-1434, 19-1452, 19-1458
`
`In the
`Supreme Court of the United States
`____________________
`
`UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
`
`v.
`
`ARTHREX, INC., ET AL.,
`
`____________________
`
`Petitioner,
`
`Respondents.
`
`On Writs of Certiorari to the
`United States Court of Appeals
`for the Federal Circuit
`______________________
`
`B R I E F A M I C U S C U R I A E O F P A C I F I C
`L E G A L F O U N D A T I O N I N S U P P O R T
`O F R E S P O N D E N T A R T H R E X , I N C . ,
`I N N O S . 1 9 - 1 4 3 4 & 1 9 - 1 4 5 2
`_______________________
`
`DAMIEN M. SCHIFF
`Pacific Legal Foundation
`930 G Street
`Sacramento, CA 95814
`916.419.7111
`dschiff@pacificlegal.org
`
`OLIVER J. DUNFORD
` Counsel of Record
`Pacific Legal Foundation
`4440 PGA Blvd., Ste. 307
`Palm Beach Gardens, FL
`33410
`916.503.9060
`odunford@pacificlegal.org
`
`Counsel for Amicus Curiae
`Pacific Legal Foundation
`
`(Additional captions listed on inside cover)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`______________________
`
`SMITH & NEPHEW, INC., ET AL.,
`
`v.
`
`ARTHREX, INC., ET AL.,
`
`______________________
`
`ARTHREX, INC.,
`
`Petitioners,
`
`Respondents.
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SMITH & NEPHEW, INC., ET AL.,
`
`______________________
`
`Respondents.
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`i
`
`T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S
`
`Table of Authorities .................................................. iii
`
`Identity and Interest of Amicus Curiae ..................... 1
`
`Introduction and Summary of Argument .................. 2
`
`Argument .................................................................... 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I. All “Officers of the United States”
` Exercise Sovereign Authority .......................... 4
`
` A. Officers of the United States exercise
`
`
`“significant” authority—properly
`
`
`defined ......................................................... 5
`
` B. “Significant” authority denotes
`
`
`sovereign authority—of varying
`
`
`levels of importance .................................... 9
`
`II. The Distinctions Among Officers Depend
`
`on the Importance and Scope of Their
` Authority ....................................................... 12
`
` A. The Constitution recognizes that
`
`
`“Officers of the United States” exercise
`
`
`varying levels of sovereign authority ....... 12
`
` B. Long-settled practice confirms that
`
`
`superior officers—although not Heads
`
`
`of Departments—exercise important
`
`
`power and wield substantial discretion ... 15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1. The Department of Justice .................. 15
`
`2. Health and Human Services ............... 19
`
`3. The “inferior Courts” ........................... 20
`
` C. Edmond’s direction-and-supervision
`
`
`standard is inadequate to distinguish
`
`
`between inferior and non-inferior
`
`
`officers ....................................................... 22
`
`

`

`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` D. The key distinction between superior
`
`
`and inferior officers is the nature and
`
`
`scope of their authority ............................. 25
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1. The power to issue final decisions
`
`on behalf of the government may
`
`be exercised only by superior and
`
`principal officers .................................. 25
`
`2. The authority to exercise substantial
`
`discretion in carrying out responsi-
`
`bilities of high importance may be
`
`exercised only by superior and
`
`principal officers .................................. 26
`
` III. Administrative Patent Judges Are
`
`Superior Officers ........................................... 28
`
`Conclusion ................................................................. 30
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`iii
`
`T A B L E O F A U T H O R I T I E S
`
`Cases
`
`Ass’n of Am. R.R. v. Dep’t of Transp.,
`821 F.3d 19 (D.C. Cir. 2016) ............................. 26
`
`Auffmordt v. Hedden,
`137 U.S. 310 (1890) ......................................... 6–7
`
`Buckley v. Valeo,
`424 U.S. 1 (1976) ....................................... 3–7, 26
`
`Butz v. Economou,
`438 U.S. 478 (1978) ........................................... 29
`
`City of Arlington v. FCC,
`569 U.S. 290 (2013) ........................................... 11
`
`Dietz v. Bouldin,
`136 S. Ct. 1885 (2016) ................................. 20–21
`
`Edmond v. United States,
`520 U.S. 651 (1997) ................... 3, 5–6, 23, 25–27
`
`Ex parte Hennen,
`38 U.S. (13 Pet.) 230 (1839) ................................ 8
`
`Federal Maritime Comm’n v. S. Carolina
`State Ports Auth.,
`535 U.S. 743 (2002) ..................................... 29–30
`
`Free Enterprise Fund v. PCAOB,
`561 U.S. 477 (2010) ............................... 10–11, 19
`
`Freytag v. Commissioner,
`501 U.S. 868 (1991) ......................................... 5–7
`
`Hall v. Wisconsin,
`103 U.S. (13 Otto) 5 (1880) .................................. 8
`
`INS v. Chadha,
`462 U.S. 919 (1983) ..................................... 11–12
`
`King v. Burnell,
`Carth. 478 (K.B. 1700) ................................ 10–11
`
`

`

`
`
`iv
`
`LaShawn A. v. Barry,
`87 F.3d 1389 (D.C. Cir. 1996) ........................... 21
`
`Lucia v. SEC,
`138 S. Ct. 2044 (2018) ................................. 1, 4–6
`
`Morrison v. Olson,
`487 U.S. 654 (1988) ................................. 3, 23–24
`
`Muskrat v. United States,
`219 U.S. 346 (1911) ........................................... 29
`
`Myers v. United States,
`272 U.S. 52 (1926) ........................................... 8–9
`
`NLRB v. Noel Canning,
`573 U.S. 513 (2014) ..................................... 15, 25
`
`Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc.,
`514 U.S. 211 (1995) ........................................... 21
`
`Rapanos v. United States,
`547 U.S. 715 (2006) ............................................. 1
`
`Sackett v. EPA,
`566 U.S. 120 (2012) ............................................. 1
`
`SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu,
`138 S. Ct. 1348 (2018) ....................................... 29
`
`Seila Law LLC v. CFPB,
`140 S. Ct. 2183 (2020) ....................................... 24
`
`U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs v. Hawkes Co., Inc.,
`136 S. Ct. 1807 (2016) ......................................... 1
`
`United States v. Germaine,
`99 U.S. (9 Otto) 508 (1878) .............................. 6–8
`
`United States v. Hartwell,
`73 U.S. (6 Wall.) 385 (1867) ............................ 6–8
`
`United States v. Maurice,
`26 F. Cas. 1211 (Va. Cir. Ct. 1823) ................. 7–8
`
`

`

`
`
`v
`
`United States v. Moore,
`95 U.S. (5 Otto) 760 (1877) .................................. 8
`
`United States v. Mouat,
`124 U.S. 303 (1888) ............................................. 8
`
`United States v. Perkins,
`116 U.S. 483 (1886) ............................................. 8
`
`United States v. Smith,
`124 U.S. 525 (1888) ............................................. 8
`
`Weiss v. United States,
`510 U.S. 163 (1994) ..................................... 21–22
`
`Williams v. United States,
`168 U.S. 382 (1897) ............................................. 8
`
`United States Constitution
`
`U.S. Const. art. I:
`
`
`
`
`
`§ 2, cl. 1 .............................................................. 12
`
`§ 3, cl. 1 .............................................................. 12
`
`U.S. Const. art. II:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`§ 1 ......................................................................... 9
`
`§ 1, cl. 2 .............................................................. 12
`
`§ 1, cl. 3 .............................................................. 12
`
`§ 2, cl. 1 .............................................................. 13
`
`§ 2, cl. 2 ...................................................... 4–5, 12
`
`§ 3 ......................................................................... 9
`
`Statutes
`
`10 U.S.C. § 113(a) ................................................... 25
`
`12 U.S.C. § 1(a) ....................................................... 27
`
`15 U.S.C. § 717t-1 ................................................... 27
`
`
`
`§ 1691 ................................................................. 17
`
`

`

`
`
`vi
`
`18 U.S.C. § 542(a) ................................................... 21
`18 U.S.C. § 542(a) ................................................... 21
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`§ 3231 ................................................................. 20
`§ 3231 ................................................................. 20
`
`§ 3331(a) ....................................................... 16, 26
`§ 3331(a) ....................................................... 16, 26
`
`§ 3742(b) ....................................................... 16, 26
`§ 3742(b) ....................................................... 16, 26
`
`§ 4041 ................................................................. 18
`§ 4041 ................................................................. 18
`
`20 U.S.C. § 33, et seq. .............................................. 17
`20 U.S.C. § 33, et seq............................................... 17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`§ 1681, et seq. ..................................................... 17
`§ 1681, et seq. ..................................................... 17
`
`§ 1701 ................................................................. 17
`§ 1701 ................................................................. 17
`
`§ 3508 ................................................................. 19
`§ 3508 ................................................................. 19
`
`21 U.S.C. § 393(b)(1) ............................................... 19
`21 U.S.C. § 393(b)(1) ............................................... 19
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`§ 393(b)(2)(A) ..................................................... 19
`§ 393(b)(2)(A) ..................................................... 19
`
`§ 393(b)(2)(B) ..................................................... 19
`§ 393(b)(2)(B) ..................................................... 19
`
`§ 393(d)(1) .......................................................... 20
`§ 393(d)(1) .......................................................... 20
`
`§ 393(d)(2)(A) ............................................... 20, 27
`§ 393(d)(2)(A) ............................................... 20, 27
`
`22 U.S.C. § 2651a(b)(2) ........................................... 27
`22 U.S.C. § 2651a(b)(2) ........................................... 27
`
`
`
`§ 6761 ................................................................. 27
`§ 6761 ................................................................. 27
`
`28 U.S.C. §§ 132–133 .............................................. 20
`28 U.S.C. §§ 132—133 .............................................. 20
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`§ 503 ................................................................... 16
`§ 503 ................................................................... 16
`
`§§ 503–506 ......................................................... 26
`§§ 503—506 ......................................................... 26
`
`§§ 504–506 ................................................... 16, 18
`§§ 504—506 ................................................... 16, 18
`
`§ 516 ................................................................... 17
`§ 516 ................................................................... 17
`
`§ 519 ............................................................. 17–18
`§ 519 ............................................................. 17—18
`
`§ 541(a) ......................................................... 17–18
`§ 541(a) ......................................................... 17—18
`
`§ 541(b) ............................................................... 17
`§ 541(b) ............................................................... 17
`
`§ 547 ............................................................. 18, 27
`§ 547 ............................................................. 18, 27
`
`§ 547(1) ............................................................... 17
`§ 547(1) ............................................................... 17
`
`§ 547(2) ............................................................... 17
`§ 547(2) ............................................................... 17
`
`§§ 671–674 ......................................................... 22
`§§ 671—674 ......................................................... 22
`
`

`

`vii
`vii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`§ 711 ................................................................... 22
`§ 711 ................................................................... 22
`
`§ 713 ................................................................... 22
`§ 713 ................................................................... 22
`
`§ 751 ................................................................... 22
`§ 751 ................................................................... 22
`
`§ 1291 ................................................................. 21
`§ 1291 ................................................................. 21
`
`§ 1296 ................................................................. 21
`§ 1296 ................................................................. 21
`
`§ 1331 ................................................................. 21
`§ 1331 ................................................................. 21
`
`§ 1355 ................................................................. 21
`§ 1355 ................................................................. 21
`
`§ 1367 ................................................................. 21
`§ 1367 ................................................................. 21
`
`29 U.S.C. § 701 ........................................................ 17
`29 U.S.C. § 701 ........................................................ 17
`
`35 U.S.C. § 3(a)(1) ................................................... 27
`35 U.S.C. § 3(a)(1) ................................................... 27
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`§ 6 ....................................................................... 28
`§ 6 ....................................................................... 28
`
`§ 6(b) ................................................................... 28
`§ 6(b) ................................................................... 28
`
`§ 6(c) ................................................................... 28
`§ 6(c) ................................................................... 28
`
`§ 141(c) ............................................................... 29
`§ 141(c) ............................................................... 29
`
`§ 311(a) ............................................................... 28
`§ 311(a) ............................................................... 28
`
`§ 314 ................................................................... 28
`§ 314 ................................................................... 28
`
`§ 316(c) ............................................................... 28
`§ 316(c) ............................................................... 28
`
`§ 318(a) ............................................................... 28
`§ 318(a) ............................................................... 28
`
`§ 319 ............................................................. 28–29
`§ 319 ............................................................. 28—29
`
`38 U.S.C. § 4301, et seq. .......................................... 17
`38 U.S.C. § 4301, et seq........................................... 17
`
`42 U.S.C. § 45 .......................................................... 17
`42 U.S.C. § 45 .......................................................... 17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`§ 192 ................................................................... 20
`§ 192 ................................................................... 20
`
`§ 193 ................................................................... 20
`§ 193 ................................................................... 20
`
`§ 205 ................................................................... 20
`§ 205 ................................................................... 20
`
`§ 282(a) ............................................................... 20
`§ 282(a) ............................................................... 20
`
`§ 282(b)(22) ........................................................ 20
`§ 282(b)(22) ........................................................ 20
`
`§ 913 ................................................................... 20
`§ 913 ................................................................... 20
`
`§ 1317(a) ............................................................. 20
`§ 1317(a) ............................................................. 20
`
`

`

`viii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`§ 2000d, et seq. ................................................... 16
`
`§ 3501 ................................................................. 19
`
`§ 12101 ............................................................... 17
`
`An Act to Establish the Department of
`Justice, ch. 150, 16 Stat. 162 (1870) ........... 15–16
`
`An Act to Establish the Judicial Courts of
`the United States, ch. 20,
`1 Stat. 73 (1789) .................................... 15, 20, 22
`
`Regulations
`
`28 C.F.R. § 0.50 ....................................................... 17
`
`28 C.F.R., Subpart J ............................................... 17
`
`Rules
`
`Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(d) ............................................... 27
`
`Sup. Ct. R. 37.3(a) ..................................................... 1
`
`Sup. Ct. R. 37.6 ......................................................... 1
`
`Other Authorities
`
`1 Annals of Cong. (June 17, 1789) .......................... 23
`
`1 Blackstone, William, Commentaries on the
`Laws of England (1765) .................................. 8–9
`
`2 Records of the Federal Convention of 1787
`(M. Farrand ed. 1911) ....................................... 14
`
`3 Story, J., Commentaries on the
`Constitution (1833) ................................ 14–15, 22
`
`30 Writings of George Washington
`(John C. Fitzpatrick ed. 1939) ...................... 9–10
`
`Amar, Akhil Reed, Intratextualism,
`112 Harv. L. Rev. 747 (1999) ............................ 24
`
`Amar, Akhil Reed,
`Some Opinions on the Opinion Clause,
`82 Va. L. Rev. 647 (1996) .................................... 9
`
`

`

`
`
`ix
`
`Anti-Federalist Nos. 76–77, An Anti-
`Federalist View of the Appointing
`Power Under the Constitution (Federal
`Farmer XIII) (Jan. 14, 1788) in
`2 Complete Anti-Federalist
`(Storing 1981) .................................................... 14
`
`Calabresi, Steven G. & Lawson, Gary,
`Why Robert Mueller’s Appointment as
`Special Counsel Was Unlawful,
`95 Notre Dame L. Rev. 87 (2019) ................ 13–14
`
`Comm. on Homeland Security & Gov. Affs.,
`Policy and Supporting Positions (2016) ............ 22
`
`Corwin, Edward S., The President:
`Office and Powers 1789–1984
`(5th Rev. ed. 1984) ............................................. 11
`
`DOJ Justice Manual,
`https://www.justice.gov/jm/justice-
`manual (updated Apr. 2018) ................. 17–18, 27
`
`Easterbrook, Frank H., Presidential Review,
`40 Case W. Res. L. Rev. 905 (1990) .................. 21
`
`The Federalist No. 72 (J. Cooke ed. 1961) ............. 10
`
`HHS Organizational Chart,
`https://www.hhs.gov/about/agencies/orgc
`hart/index.html .................................................. 19
`
`Mascott, Jennifer L.,
`Who Are “Officers of the United States”?,
`70 Stan. L. Rev. 443 (2018) ................... 4, 6, 9, 11
`
`Office of Management and Budget, Analytical Per-
`spectives, Budget of the U.S.
`Government, Fiscal Year 2020 (2019) .............. 22
`
`

`

`
`
`x
`
`Officers of the U.S. Within the Meaning of
`the Appointments Clause,
`31 Op. O.L.C. 73 (2007) ..................................... 10
`
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board,
`Standard Operating Procedure 2
`(Revision 10) (Sept. 20, 2018),
`https://go.usa.gov/xwXem .................................. 29
`
`Sholette, Kevin, Note, The American Czars,
`20 Cornell J.L. Pub. Pol’y 219 (2010)................ 10
`
`U.S. Department of Justice,
`About the Division,
`https://www.justice.gov/crt/about-division ....... 16
`
`Wiener, Ross E., Inter-Branch Appointments
`After the Independent Counsel: Court
`Appointment of United States Attorneys,
`86 Minn. L. Rev. 363 (2001) ........................ 27–28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`1
`
`I D E N T I T Y A N D I N T E R E S T
`O F A M I C U S C U R I A E 1
`
`Founded in 1973, PACIFIC LEGAL FOUNDATION is a
`nonprofit, tax-exempt, California corporation estab-
`lished for the purpose of litigating matters affecting
`the public interest. PLF provides a voice in the courts
`for Americans who believe in limited constitutional
`government, private property rights, and individual
`freedom.
`
`PLF is the most experienced public-interest legal
`organization defending the constitutional principle of
`separation of powers in the arena of administrative
`law. PLF’s attorneys have participated as lead counsel
`or counsel for amici in several cases involving the role
`of the Judicial Branch as an independent check on the
`Executive and Legislative branches under the Consti-
`tution’s Separation of Powers. See, e.g., Lucia v. SEC,
`138 S. Ct. 2044 (2018) (SEC administrative-law judge
`is “officer of the United States” under the Appoint-
`ments Clause); U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs v. Hawkes
`Co., Inc., 136 S. Ct. 1807 (2016) (judicial review of
`agency interpretation of Clean Water Act); Sackett v.
`EPA, 566 U.S. 120 (2012) (same); Rapanos v. United
`States, 547 U.S. 715 (2006) (agency regulations defin-
`ing “waters of the United States”).
`
`This case raises important questions concerning
`the exercise of the “executive Power” of the United
`
`1 Pursuant to this Court’s Rule 37.3(a), Counsel for all parties
`provided blanket consent to the filing of amicus briefs. Pursuant
`to Rule 37.6, Amicus Curiae affirms that no counsel for any party
`authored this brief in whole or in part, and no counsel or party
`made a monetary contribution intended to fund the preparation
`or submission of this brief. No person other than Amicus Curiae,
`its members, or its counsel made a monetary contribution to its
`preparation or submission.
`
`

`

`
`
`2
`
`States. PLF offers a discussion of first principles that
`should illuminate the Court’s review.
`
`I N T R O D U C T I O N A N D
`S U M M A R Y O F A R G U M E N T
`
`The Court should hold that administrative patent
`judges (APJs) on the Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`are non-inferior officers who must be appointed by the
`President, by and with the advice and consent of the
`Senate. This is so because APJs exercise substantial,
`discretionary, and final decision-making power in in-
`ter partes and post-grant reviews—authority compa-
`rable to that exercised by federal district court judges,
`who are universally recognized to be non-inferior of-
`ficers.
`
`This proposed holding would conform to the Con-
`stitution’s original text and meaning, and to well-es-
`tablished historical practice: first, the Appointments
`Clause recognizes more than just two simple catego-
`ries of “inferior Officers” and non-inferior officers; and
`second, distinctions among federal officers have de-
`pended on the nature and scope of their authority.
`Amicus submits that the Appointments Clause con-
`templates three types of officers: principal officers
`(chiefly the Heads of Departments, who exercise im-
`mense power, including broad discretion to (help the
`President) establish policy and set priorities); supe-
`rior officers (who exercise important powers but who
`are subordinate to their respective department’s prin-
`cipal officer); and inferior officers (who perform
`less-important governmental responsibilities and who
`may be appointed by principal officers). In this taxon-
`omy, APJs, like district court judges, are superior of-
`ficers who require Presidential appointment with Sen-
`ate confirmation (PAS appointment).
`
`

`

`
`
`3
`
`These distinctions among federal officials, if not
`the terminology, are hardly novel. See Morrison v. Ol-
`son, 487 U.S. 654, 722 (1988) (Scalia, J., dissenting)
`(“Even an officer who is subordinate to a department
`head can be a principal officer.”). But they do call for
`the Court to refine the direction-and-supervision
`standard set forth in Edmond v. United States, 520
`U.S. 651 (1997). There, the Court acknowledged that
`judges of the Coast Guard’s Court of Criminal Appeals
`(like the APJs here) exercised “significant” authority.
`But it held that the exercise of “‘significant authority
`pursuant to the laws of the United States’ marks, not
`the line between principal and inferior officer,” but ra-
`ther, “the line between officer and nonofficer.” Id. at
`662 (quoting Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 126 (1976)).
`The judges’ exercise of “significant” authority meant
`that they were officers; but, the Court held, because
`their work was “directed and supervised at some level
`by other[ officers] who were appointed by Presidential
`nomination with the advice and consent of the Sen-
`ate,” they were inferior officers. Id. at 663.
`
`But if mere direction and supervision are sufficient
`to render an officer “inferior,” then a vast array of of-
`ficials who wield substantial governmental authority
`and who have long been recognized as officers requir-
`ing PAS appointment—e.g., the Assistant Attorney
`General for the Civil Rights Division, Ambassadors,
`United States Attorneys, judges of the “inferior
`Courts,” the FDA Commissioner, the PTO Director
`here—would be deemed inferior officers. Under the
`taxonomy offered above, these officers should be called
`“superior” officers, a species of non-inferior officer.
`
`This principal-superior-inferior ordering not only
`conforms to historical practice, it also follows from the
`
`

`

`
`
`4
`
`authentic meaning of officer. Originally, the term “Of-
`ficers of the United States” most likely encompassed
`“all federal officials who perform an ongoing, statutory
`duty—no matter how important or significant the
`duty.” Lucia v. SEC, 138 S. Ct. 2044, 2056 (2018)
`(Thomas, J., concurring) (emphasis added) (citing Jen-
`nifer L. Mascott, Who Are “Officers of the United
`States”?, 70 Stan. L. Rev. 443, 454 (2018)). While this
`definition appears to conflict with Edmond and Buck-
`ley, neither opinion defined “significant.” As explained
`below, the term “significant” in this context should be
`understood to mean sovereign, i.e., all “Officers of the
`United States” exercise “[sovereign] authority” or
`carry out a sovereign duty. Buckley, 424 U.S. at 126.
`This definition faithfully tracks the authorities cited
`in Buckley.
`
`In sum, officers like APJs who exercise particu-
`larly important sovereign authority, but who are
`nonetheless subordinate to Heads of Departments and
`perhaps other high-level officers, are neither “princi-
`pal” nor “inferior” officers—they are “superior” officers
`requiring PAS appointment.
`
`A R G U M E N T
`I. ALL “OFFICERS OF THE UNITED STATES”
`EXERCISE SOVEREIGN AUTHORITY
`
`The Appointments Clause provides:
`
`[The President] shall nominate, and by and
`with the Advice and Consent of the Senate,
`shall appoint Ambassadors, other public
`Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the su-
`preme Court, and all other Officers of the
`United States, whose Appointments are not
`herein otherwise provided for, and which
`
`

`

`
`
`5
`
`shall be established by Law: but the Con-
`gress may by Law vest the Appointment of
`such inferior Officers, as they think proper,
`in the President alone, in the Courts of Law,
`or in the Heads of Departments.
`
`U.S. Const. art. II, § 2, cl. 2. The Clause expressly con-
`templates several types of officers—including the
`President and Members of Congress (“all other Offic-
`ers of the United States” whose appointments are
`elsewhere provided for), Heads of Departments, this
`Court’s Chief and Associate Justices, Courts of Law,
`and “inferior Officers”—all of whom exercise different
`kinds and varying levels of sovereign authority.
`A. Officers of the United States exercise
`“significant” authority—properly
`defined
`
`According to Edmond, the “exercise of ‘significant
`authority pursuant to the laws of the United States’
`marks, not the line between principal and inferior of-
`ficer,” but rather, “the line between officer and nonof-
`ficer,” 520 U.S. at 662 (quoting Buckley, 424 U.S. at
`126). Buckley declared that the term “Officers of the
`United States” is “intended to have substantive mean-
`ing[,]” and that its “fair import is that any appointee
`exercising significant authority pursuant to the laws
`of the United States” is an “Officer of the United
`States.” 424 U.S. at 126. But Buckley neither defined
`“significant authority” nor discussed its content.2
`Since then, the Court has suggested that “significant”
`
`
`2 As in Edmond, the Court in Freytag v. Commissioner quoted
`this language from Buckley but did not define “significant.” See
`501 U.S. 868, 881 (1991) (quoting Buckley, 424 U.S. at 126). And
`in Lucia, the Court declined the invitation to elaborate on its
`meaning. 138 S. Ct. at 2051–52.
`
`

`

`
`
`6
`
`involves something more than ministerial. See, e.g.,
`Edmond, 520 U.S. at 662 (not disputing that military
`appellate judges, who review court-martial proceed-
`ings and may independently weigh evidence, exercise
`“significant authority on behalf of the United States”);
`Freytag, 501 U.S. at 881 (stating that “special trial
`judges” in the U.S. Tax Court perform “more than
`ministerial tasks”). Respectfully, this understanding
`calls for refinement.
`
`The term “Officers of the United States,” originally
`understood, encompasses all federal employees who
`have “an ongoing, statutory duty—no matter how im-
`portant or significant the duty.” Lucia, 138 S. Ct. at
`2056 (Thomas, J., concurring) (emphasis added) (cit-
`ing Mascott, supra, at 454). See also United States v.
`Hartwell, 73 U.S. (6 Wall.) 385, 393 (1867) (“An office
`is a public station, or employment, conferred by the
`appointment of government. The term embraces the
`ideas of tenure, duration, emolument, and duties. The
`employment of the defendant was in the public service
`of the United States. He was appointed pursuant to
`law, and his compensation was fixed by law. Vacating
`the office of his superior would not have affected the
`tenure of his place. His duties were continuing and
`permanent, not occasional or temporary.”).
`
`This original understanding of “officer” is con-
`sistent with cases cited in Buckley. There, the Court
`relied on Auffmordt v. Hedden, 137 U.S. 310, 327
`(1890), and United States v. Germaine, 99 U.S. (9
`Otto) 508 (1878), for the proposition that non-officer
`employees are “lesser functionaries subordinate to of-
`ficers of the United States.” Buckley, 424 U.S. at 126
`
`

`

`
`
`7
`
`n.162.3 But neither Auffmordt nor Germaine held that
`government officials exercising apparently insignifi-
`cant power must be non-officers.
`
`In Germaine, the Court explained that the term
`“office” “embraces the ideas of tenure, duration, emol-
`ument, and duties, and that the latter were continu-
`ing and permanent, not occasional or temporary.” 99
`U.S. at 511–12. The Court held that a surgeon was not
`an officer because his “duties [were] not continuing
`and permanent, and they [were] occasional and inter-
`mittent[;]” he acted “only . . . when called on by the
`Commissioner of Pensions in some special case[;]” he
`was “required to keep no place of business for the pub-
`lic use[;]” and “[n]o regular appropriation [was] made
`to pay his compensation.” Id. The surgeon’s associa-
`tion with the government, in other words, was akin to
`a contractual relationship.
`
`Similarly, Auffmordt held that a “merchant ap-
`praiser” was not an officer because he was not a full-
`time functionary; he was “selected for the special
`case[,]” and he had “no general functions, nor any em-
`ployment which ha[d] any duration as to time, or
`which extend[ed] over any case further than as he
`[was] selected to act in that particular case.” 137 U.S.
`at 326–27. His position was “without tenure, duration,
`continuing emolument, or continuous duties, and he
`act[ed] only occasionally and temporarily.” Id. at 327.
`
`Auffmordt itself cited several decisions which like-
`wise demonstrate that the “significance” of an em-
`ployee’s duties does not determine whether the em-
`ployee is an officer. See 137 U.S. at 327 (citing United
`
`
`3 Neither Buckley, nor Freytag, which quoted this passage from
`Buckley, defined “lesser functionary.” See Freytag, 501 U.S. at
`880 (quoting Buckley, 424 U.S. at 126 n.162).
`
`

`

`
`
`8
`
`