Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/17-130_4f14.pdf
Page Number: 34

14 

LUCIA v. SEC 

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

available.  The  majority  suggests  that  in  such  cases,  the 
“rule  of  necessity”  may  excuse  compliance  with  its  new-
found  different-“Officer”  requirement.    Ante,  at  12–13, 
n. 5.  But that still does not explain why the Constitution 
would require a hearing before a different “Officer” at all. 

* 

* 

* 
The  Court’s  decision  to  address  the  Appointments
Clause question separately from the constitutional removal
question  is  problematic.    By  considering  each  question  in 
isolation,  the  Court  risks  (should  the  Court  later  extend 
Free  Enterprise  Fund)  unraveling,  step-by-step,  the  foun-
dations  of  the  Federal Government’s  administrative  adju-
dication system as it has existed for decades, and perhaps 
of the merit-based civil-service system in general.  And the 
Court  risks  doing  so  without  considering  that  potential 
consequence.  For these reasons, I concur in the judgment 
in part and, with respect, I dissent in part.