Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/17-130_4f14.pdf
Page Number: 29

Cite as:  585 U. S. ____ (2018) 

9 

BREYER, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part 
Opinion of BREYER, J. 

But, if the holding is to the contrary, and more particularly 
if  a  holding  that  administrative  law  judges  are  “inferior 
Officers”  brings  with  it  application  of  Free  Enterprise 
Fund’s limitation on “for cause” protections from removal,
then  a  determination  that  administrative  law  judges  are,
constitutionally speaking, “inferior Officers” would directly
conflict  with  Congress’  intent,  as  revealed  in  the  statute. 
In that case, it would be clear to me that Congress did not
intend  that  consequence,  and  that  it  therefore  did  not 
intend  to  make  administrative  law  judges  “inferior  Offi-
cers” at all. 

B 
Congress’  intent  on  the  question  matters,  in  my  view,
because  the  Appointments  Clause  is  properly  understood 
to grant Congress a degree of leeway as to whether partic-
ular  Government  workers  are  officers  or  instead  mere 
employees  not  subject  to  the  Appointments  Clause.    The 
words  “by  Law”  appear  twice  in  the  Clause.    It  says  that
the  President  (“with  the  Advice  and  Consent  of  the  Sen-
ate”)  shall  appoint  “Ambassadors,  other  public  Ministers 
and  Consuls,  Judges  of  the  supreme  Court,  and  all  other 
Officers  of  the  United  States,  . . .  which  shall  be  estab-
lished by Law.”  Art. II, §2, cl. 2 (emphasis added).  It then 
adds that “Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of 
such  inferior  Officers,  as  they  think  proper,  in  the  Presi-
dent  alone,  in  the  Courts  of  Law,  or  in  the  Heads  of  De-
partments.”  Ibid. (emphasis added). 

The  use  of  the  words  “by  Law”  to  describe  the  estab-
lishment  and  means  of  appointment  of  “Officers  of  the
United States,” together with the fact that Article I of the 
Constitution  vests  the  legislative  power  in  Congress,
suggests  that  (other  than  the  officers  the  Constitution 
specifically lists) Congress, not the Judicial Branch alone,
must play a major role in determining who is an “Office[r] 
of the United States.”  And Congress’ intent in this specific