Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-1334_8m58.pdf
Page Number: 37

Cite as:  590 U. S. ____ (2020) 

11 

THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment 

The  Court’s  opinion  has  no  answers  and  does  not  even 
acknowledge the questions.  And, regardless of how these
questions are resolved, the primarily local test allows Con-
gress  to  evade  the  requirements  of  the  Appointments
Clause  by  supplementing  an  officer’s  federal  duties  with
sufficient territorial duties, such that they become “primar-
ily local,” whatever that means. 

* 

* 

* 
Today’s decision reaches the right outcome, but it does so
in a roundabout way that departs from the original meaning
of the Appointments Clause.  I would hold that the Board’s 
members  are  not  “Officers  of  the  United  States”  because 
they  perform  ongoing  statutory  duties  under  only  Article
IV.  I therefore cannot join the Court’s opinion and concur 
only in the judgment.