Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-1434_ancf.pdf
Page Number: 45

6 

UNITED STATES v. ARTHREX, INC. 

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

shift toward formalism was a mistake. 

I continue to believe that a more functional approach to
constitutional interpretation in this area is superior.  As for 
this particular suit, the consequences of the majority’s rule
are clear.  The nature of the PTAB calls for technically cor-
rect  adjudicatory  decisions.    And,  as  in  Wiener,  that  fact 
calls for greater, not less, independence from those poten-
tially influenced by political factors.  The Court’s decision 
prevents Congress from establishing a patent scheme con-
sistent with that idea. 

But there are further reasons for a functional approach
that  extend  beyond  the  bounds  of  patent  adjudication.
First, the Executive Branch has many different constituent
bodies,  many  different  bureaus,  many  different  agencies, 
many  different  tasks,  many  different  kinds  of  employees.
Administration comes in many different shapes and sizes.
Appreciating this variety is especially important in the con-
text  of  administrative  adjudication,  which  typically  de-
mands decisionmaking (at least where policy made by oth-
ers is simply applied) that is free of political influence.  Are 
the  President  and  Congress,  through  judicial  insistence
upon certain mechanisms for removal or review, to be de-
nied the ability to create independent adjudicators?

Second, the Constitution is not a detailed tax code, and 
for  good  reason.  The  Nation’s  desires  and  needs  change, 
sometimes over long periods of time.  In the 19th century 
the Judiciary may not have foreseen the changes that pro-
duced the New Deal, along with its accompanying changes 
in the nature of the tasks that Government was expected to
perform.  We may not now easily foresee just what kinds of
tasks present or future technological changes will call for.
The Founders wrote a Constitution that they believed was 
flexible enough to respond to new needs as those needs de-
veloped  and  changed  over  the  course  of  decades  or  centu-
ries.  At the same time, they designed a Constitution that