Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-1434_ancf.pdf
Page Number: 27.0

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

23 

Opinion of the Court 
Opinion of ROBERTS, C. J. 

review by a principal officer.  Because the source of the con-
stitutional violation is the restraint on the review authority
of the Director, rather than the appointment of APJs by the
Secretary, Arthrex is not entitled to a hearing before a new 
panel of APJs.  Cf. Lucia, 585 U. S., at ___–___ (slip op., at 
12–13). 

* 

* 

* 
Today, we reaffirm and apply the rule from Edmond that 
the exercise of executive power by inferior officers must at 
some level be subject to the direction and supervision of an
officer  nominated  by  the  President  and  confirmed  by  the
Senate.  The Constitution therefore forbids the enforcement 
of  statutory  restrictions  on  the  Director  that  insulate  the 
decisions of APJs from his direction and supervision.  To be 
clear,  the  Director  need  not  review  every  decision  of  the 
PTAB.  What matters is that the Director have the discre-
tion to review decisions rendered by APJs.  In this way, the
President remains responsible for the exercise of executive 
power—and  through  him,  the  exercise  of  executive  power 
remains accountable to the people. 

The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for 
the Federal Circuit is vacated, and the cases are remanded 
for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 

It is so ordered.