Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-1434_ancf.pdf
Page Number: 35.0

8 

UNITED STATES v. ARTHREX, INC. 

Opinion of GORSUCH, J. 

mysticism.  Short of summoning ghosts and spirits, how are 
we  to  know  what  those  in  a  past  Congress  might  think 
about  a  question  they  never  expressed  any  view  on—and
may have never foreseen?

Let’s  be  honest,  too.  These  legislative  séances  usually 
wind up producing only the results intended by those con-
ducting the performance: “When you are told to decide, not 
on the basis of what the legislature said, but on the basis of
what it meant, . . . your best shot at figuring out what the 
legislature meant is to ask yourself what a wise and intelli-
gent person should have meant; and that will surely bring 
you to the conclusion that the law means what you think it 
ought to mean.”  Scalia, Common Law Courts in a Civil-Law 
System, in A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and
the Law 18 (A. Gutmann ed. 1997); see also United States 
v.  Public  Util.  Comm’n  of  Cal.,  345  U. S  295,  319  (1953) 
(Jackson, J., concurring) (describing that process as “not in-
terpretation  of  a  statute  but  creation  of  a  statute”).    The 
crystal ball ends up being more of a mirror.

Our case illustrates the problem.  The Court apparently 
believes  that  Congress  would  have  wanted  us  to  render 
PTAB decisions reviewable by the Director.  This regime is 
consistent  with  the  “ ‘standard  federal  model’ ”  for  agency
adjudication.    Walker  &  Wasserman,  The  New  World  of 
Agency Adjudication, 107 Cal. L. Rev. 141, 143–144 (2019).
It’s easy enough to see why a group of staid judges selecting 
among  policy  choices  for  itself  might  prefer  a  “standard”
model.  But if there is anything we know for certain about 
the AIA, it is that Congress rejected this familiar approach
when it came to PTAB proceedings.  Multiple amici contend 
that Congress did so specifically to ensure APJs enjoy “in-
dependence” from superior executive officers and thus pos-
sess more “impartiality.”  Brief for Fair Inventing Fund as 
Amicus Curiae 20–21 (quoting legislative history that Con-
gress desired a “ ‘fairer’ ” and “ ‘more objective’ ” process); see 
also, e.g., Brief for New Civil Liberties Alliance as Amicus