Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/17-130_4f14.pdf
Page Number: 10

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

7 

Opinion of the Court 

minor  matters,”  they  could  both  hear  and  definitively 
resolve  a  case  for  the  Tax  Court.  Id.,  at  873.    In  more 
major  matters,  they  could  preside  over  the  hearing,  but 
could  not  issue  the  final  decision;  instead,  they  were  to 
“prepare  proposed  findings  and  an  opinion”  for  a  regular 
Tax  Court  judge  to  consider.    Ibid.  The  proceeding  chal-
lenged  in  Freytag  was  a  major  one,  involving  $1.5  billion 
in  alleged  tax  deficiencies.    See  id.,  at  871,  n. 1.    After 
conducting  a  14-week  trial,  the  STJ  drafted  a  proposed
decision in favor of the Government.  A regular judge then
adopted  the  STJ’s  work  as  the  opinion  of  the  Tax  Court. 
See id., at 872.  The losing parties argued on appeal that
the STJ was not constitutionally appointed. 

This  Court  held  that  the  Tax  Court’s  STJs  are  officers, 
not  mere  employees.  Citing  Germaine,  the  Court  first 
found  that  STJs  hold  a  continuing  office  established  by 
law.  See  501  U. S.,  at  881.    They  serve  on  an  ongoing,
rather  than  a  “temporary  [or]  episodic[,]  basis”;  and  their
“duties,  salary,  and  means  of  appointment”  are  all  speci-
fied in the Tax Code.  Ibid.  The Court then considered, as 
Buckley  demands,  the  “significance”  of  the  “authority” 
STJs  wield.    501  U. S.,  at  881.  In  addressing  that  issue,
the  Government  had  argued  that  STJs  are  employees, 
rather  than  officers,  in  all  cases  (like  the  one  at  issue)  in 
which  they  could  not  “enter  a  final  decision.”  Ibid.  But 
the  Court  thought  the  Government’s  focus  on  finality
“ignore[d] the significance of the duties and discretion that
[STJs]  possess.” 
Ibid.    Describing  the  responsibilities
involved in presiding over adversarial hearings, the Court 
said:  STJs  “take  testimony,  conduct  trials,  rule  on  the 
admissibility  of  evidence,  and  have  the  power  to  enforce
compliance  with  discovery  orders.”  Id.,  at  881–882.  And 
the  Court  observed  that  “[i]n  the  course  of  carrying  out
these  important  functions,  the  [STJs]  exercise  significant 
discretion.”  Id.,  at  882.    That  fact  meant  they  were  offi-