Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-86_l5gm.pdf
Page Number: 27.0

4 

AXON ENTERPRISE, INC. v. FTC 

THOMAS, J., concurring 

Such rights could be adjudicated and divested only by Arti-
cle III courts.  See 575 U. S., at 713 (“[A]n exercise of the
judicial power is required ‘when the government wants to 
act authoritatively upon core private rights that had vested
in  a  particular  individual’ ”  (quoting  C.  Nelson,  Adjudica-
tion in the Political Branches, 107 Colum. L. Rev. 559, 569 
(2007)  (Nelson);  alteration  omitted));  see  also  J.  Mascott, 
Constitutionally Conforming Agency Adjudication, 2 Loyola
U. Chi. J. Reg. Compliance 22, 45 (2017) (Mascott) (“Cases 
involving  . . .  deprivations  or  transfers  of  life,  liberty,  or 
property  constitute  a  ‘core’  of  cases  that  . . .  must  be  re-
solved  by  Article  III  courts—not  executive  adjudicators
‘dressed up as courts’ ”).

A different regime prevailed for public rights and privi-
leges.  Unlike “the private unalienable rights of each indi-
vidual,” Lansing v. Smith, 4 Wend. 9, 21 (N. Y. 1829), public 
rights “belon[g] to the people at large,” and governmental 
privileges  are  “created  purely  for  reasons  of  public  policy
and ha[ve] no counterpart in the Lockean state of nature.” 
Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 574 U. S. 
318, 344, n. 2 (2015) (THOMAS, J., dissenting) (internal quo-
tation marks omitted).  It was understood at the founding
that such governmental privileges (some of which we today 
call Government benefits and entitlements) “could be taken 
away  without  judicial  process.”    Sessions  v.  Dimaya,  584 
U. S. ___, ___ (2018) (THOMAS, J., dissenting) (slip op., at 9);
see  also  Mascott  25.    Thus,  “the  legislative  and  executive 
branches  may  dispose  of  public  rights  [and  privileges]  at 
will—including  through  non-Article  III  adjudications.” 
Wellness Int’l Network, 575 U. S., at 713 (THOMAS, J., dis-
senting). 

B 
The requirement of plenary Article III adjudication of pri-
vate rights began to change in the early 20th century.  As 
notions of administrative efficiency came into vogue, courts