Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-1434_ancf.pdf
Page Number: 65.0

18 

UNITED STATES v. ARTHREX, INC. 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

much supervision and control another officer has.  The ra-
tionales on which Edmond relies to graft a functional ele-
ment into the inferior-officer inquiry do not withstand close 
scrutiny. 

A 
Early discussions of inferior officers reflect at least three
understandings of who these officers were—and who they
were  not—under  the  Appointments  Clause.  Though  I  do
not purport to decide today which is best, it is worth noting 
that administrative patent judges would be inferior under 
each. 

1 
The narrowest understanding divides all executive offic-
ers into three categories: heads of departments, superior of-
ficers, and inferior officers.  During the Constitutional Con-
vention,  James  Madison  supported  this  view  in  a  brief 
discussion about the addition of the Inferior Officer Clause. 
2 Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, p. 627 (M. Far-
rand ed. 1911) (Farrand); see also Mascott, Who Are “Offic-
ers of the United States,” 70 Stan. L. Rev. 443, 468, n. 131 
(2018).  Gouverneur Morris moved to add the clause.  But 
Madison initially resisted.  He argued that it did “not go far
enough if it be necessary at all [because] Superior Officers 
below Heads of Departments ought in some cases to have
the appointment of the lesser offices.”  2 Farrand 627.  The 
motion nonetheless passed.  The crux of Madison’s objection
appears to rely on the idea that there are three types of of-
ficers:  inferior  officers,  superior  officers,  and  department 
heads.  Congress could vest the appointment of inferior of-
ficers  in  the  President,  the  courts,  or  a  department  head.
But  the  others  must  be  appointed  by  the  President  with 
Senate confirmation. 

Some  held a  second  understanding:  Inferior  officers  en-
compass  nearly  all  officers.    As  Justice  Story  put  it,