Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-1434_ancf.pdf
Page Number: 18.0

14 

UNITED STATES v. ARTHREX, INC. 

Opinion of the Court 

two levels of authority” separate the President from PTAB
decisions, post, at 1, but the unchecked exercise of executive 
power by an officer buried many layers beneath the Presi-
dent poses more, not less, of a constitutional problem.  Con-
spicuously  absent  from  the  dissent  is  any  concern  for  the
President’s ability to “discharge his own constitutional duty 
of  seeing  that  the  laws  be  faithfully  executed.”    Myers  v. 
United States, 272 U. S. 52, 135 (1926). 

The  other  dissent  charges  that  the  Court’s  opinion  has
“no  foundation”  in  past  decisions.  Post,  at  5  (opinion  of 
BREYER,  J.).  Of  course,  we  have  a  different  view  on  the 
proper application of Edmond in this dispute.  As for other 
past decisions, it is the dissent that expressly grounds its
analysis in dissenting opinions from Free Enterprise Fund 
and  Seila  Law,  while  frankly  acknowledging  that  the 
Court’s opinions in those cases support the principles that
guide us here.  Post, at 5–7. 

C 

History reinforces the conclusion that the unreviewable 
executive  power  exercised  by  APJs  is  incompatible  with 
their status as inferior officers.  Since the founding, princi-
pal officers have directed the decisions of inferior officers on
matters of law as well as policy.  Hamilton articulated the 
principle  of  constitutional  accountability  underlying  such
supervision in a 1792 Treasury circular.  Writing as Secre-
tary  of  the  Treasury  to  the  customs  officials  under  his
charge, he warned that any deviations from his instructions 
“would be subversive of uniformity in the execution of the
laws.”  3 Works of Alexander Hamilton 557 (J. Hamilton ed. 
1850).  “The power to superintend,” he explained, “must im-
ply a right to judge and direct,” thereby ensuring that “the 
responsibility for a wrong construction rests with the head
of the department, when it proceeds from him.”  Id., at 559. 
Early  congressional  statutes  expressly  empowered  de-
partment heads to supervise the work of their subordinates,