Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-1434_ancf.pdf
Page Number: 62

Cite as:  594 U. S. ____ (2021) 

15 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

at  1327  (addressing  whether  “the  [administrative  patent
judges] who presided over this inter partes review were . . . 
constitutionally appointed”).  Given that this Court is gen-
erally one “of review, not of first view,” it is unclear why we 
would grant relief on this ground.  Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 
U. S. 709, 718, n. 7 (2005). 

Second, the idea that administrative patent judges are at
the top of  the chain of command is belied not only by  the 
statutory scheme, see supra, at 7–10, but also by the major-
ity’s own refusal to ever name these judges principal offic-
ers.  See ante, at 19. 

Third, even if the chain of command were broken, Senate 
confirmation of an administrative patent judge would offer 
no fix.  As Madison explained, the Senate’s role in appoint-
ments is an exception to the vesting of executive power in
the President; it gives another branch a say in the hiring of 
executive officials.  1 Annals of Cong. 463 (1789).  An Article 
II Vesting Clause problem cannot be remedied by stripping 
away even more power from the Executive. 

Fourth,  and  finally,  historical  practice  establishes  that 
the vesting of executive power in the President did not re-
quire that every patent decision be appealable to a principal 
officer.  As the majority correctly explains, these sorts of fi-
nal decisions were routinely made by inferior executive of-
ficers (or, perhaps, by mere executive employees).  See ante, 
at  17–18.  If  no  statutory  path  to  appeal  to  an  executive
principal officer existed then, I see no constitutional reason 
why such a path must exist now. 

Perhaps this Vesting Clause theory misunderstands the
majority’s  argument.    After  all,  the  Court  never  directly
says that any law or action violates the Vesting Clause.  The 
Court simply criticizes as overly formalistic the notion that
both Clauses do exactly what their names suggest: The Ap-
pointments Clause governs only appointments; the Vesting
Clause deals just with the vesting of executive power in the
President.  Ante,  at  13.  I  would  not  be  so  quick  to  stare