Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-916_f2ah.pdf
Page Number: 37

18 

THRYV, INC. v. CLICK-TO-CALL TECHNOLOGIES, LP 

GORSUCH, J., dissenting 

statutes (as other parts of Cuozzo suggested and the Court
insists  today)—who  can  say?    And  even  supposing  that 
“closely related to institution” really is the test we’ll apply 
next time, does anyone know what this judicially concocted
formulation even means?  Despite three opinions interpret-
ing the same provision in under five years, only one thing 
is  clear:  Neither  the  statute  nor  our  precedent  can  be
counted  upon  to  give  the  answer.  Litigants  and  lower
courts alike will just have to wait and see. 

V 
It’s  a  rough  day  when  a  decision  manages  to  defy  the
plain  language  of  a  statute,  our  interpretative  presump-
tions, and our precedent.  But today that’s not the worst of
it.  The Court’s expansive reading of §314(d) takes us fur-
ther down the road of handing over judicial powers involv-
ing the disposition of individual rights to executive agency 
officials. 

We started the wrong turn in Oil States Energy Services, 
LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC, 584 U. S. ___ (2018). 
There, a majority of this Court acquiesced to the AIA’s pro-
visions allowing agency officials to withdraw already-issued 
patents subject to very limited judicial review.  As the ma-
jority  saw  it,  patents  are  merely  another  public  franchise 
that can be withdrawn more or less by executive grace.  So 
what if patents were, for centuries, regarded as a form of 
personal property that, like any other, could be taken only
by a judgment of a court of law.  So what if our separation
of powers and history frown on unfettered executive power 
over individuals, their liberty, and their property.  What the 
government gives, the government may take away—with or
without the involvement of the independent Judiciary.  To-
day, a majority compounds that error by abandoning a good 
part of what little judicial review even the AIA left behind.
Just try to imagine this Court treating other individual