Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-859new_kjfm.pdf
Page Number: 67

Cite as:  603 U. S. ____ (2024) 

7 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

is permissible, then “ ‘the Seventh Amendment poses no in-
dependent bar to the adjudication of that action by a non-
jury factfinder’ ” (quoting Granfinanciera, 492 U. S., at 53– 
54));  see  W.  Baude,  Adjudication  Outside  Article  III,  133
Harv.  L. Rev.  1511,  1571  (2020)  (“The  Article  III  analysis
should be conducted first, on its own.  And then . . . if the 
non-Article  III  adjudication  is  permissible,  the  Seventh 
Amendment should be ignored”).  When executive power is
at  stake,  Congress  does  not  violate  Article  III  or  the  Sev-
enth Amendment by authorizing a nonjury factfinder to ad-
judicate the dispute.

So, the critical issue in this type of case is whether Con-
gress  can  assign  a  particular  matter  to  a  non-Article  III
factfinder. 

B 
For more than a century and a half, this Court has an-
swered that Article III question by pointing to the distinc-
tion between “private rights” and “public rights.”  See Mur-
ray’s Lessee v. Hoboken Land & Improvement Co., 18 How. 
272, 284 (1856) (recognizing public-rights exception).  The 
distinction  is  helpful  because  public  rights  always  can  be
assigned outside of Article III.  They “ ‘do not require judi-
cial  determination’ ”  under  the  Constitution,  even  if  they 
“ ‘are susceptible of it.’ ”  Crowell v. Benson, 285 U. S. 22, 50 
(1932) (quoting Ex parte Bakelite Corp., 279 U. S. 438, 451 
(1929)).

The  majority  says  that  aspects  of  the  public-rights  doc-
trine have been confusing.  See ante, at 17.  That might be
true for cases involving wholly private disputes, but not for 
cases where the Government is a party.3  It has long been 

—————— 

3 Every case  that  has  expressed  consternation  about  the precise  con-
tours of the public-rights doctrine, including those cited by the majority,
involve only private disputes—or, more precisely, “disputes to which the
Federal  Government  is  not  a  party  in  its  sovereign  capacity.”    Granfi-