Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-1434_ancf.pdf
Page Number: 70

Cite as:  594 U. S. ____ (2021) 

23 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

But the majority does not identify one.  And, without any 
justification in the text, in the history, or in our precedent, 
I would not impose that requirement. 

B 
If anything, the Court’s functional prong in Edmond may
merit  reconsideration.  The  Edmond  opinion  highlighted 
three justifications for its decision to require more than just 
a lower rank and a superior officer.  But having reviewed
the history, it is worth checking whether these reasons are 
sound.  They may not be. 

First, Edmond highlighted the Constitution’s use of the 
term “inferior officer.”  520 U. S., at 663.  Were the Appoint-
ments Clause meant to identify only lower ranking officers, 
then the Constitution could have used the phrase “ ‘lesser 
officer.’ ”  Ibid.  But Madison’s objection to the Inferior Of-
ficer Clause pokes a hole in this distinction.  After all, Mad-
ison used almost exactly this “lesser officer” phrasing: He
urged  a  broader  clause  so  that  “superior  officers”  could 
“have the appointment of the lesser offices.”  2 Farrand 627 
(emphasis added).  If Madison understood the two terms to 
be interchangeable, perhaps this Court should too.

Second,  Edmond flagged that the Appointments Clause
was  designed  “to  preserve  political  accountability  relative 
to important Government assignments.”  520 U. S., at 663. 
But the accountability feature of the Appointments Clause
was not about accountability for specific decisions made by 
inferior officers, but rather accountability for “ ‘a bad nomi-
nation.’ ”  Id., at 660 (quoting The Federalist No. 77, p. 392
(M. Beloff ed. 1987)).  The Appointments Clause “provides
a direct line of accountability for any poorly performing of-
ficers  back  to  the  actor  who  selected  them.”    Mascott,  70 
Stan. L. Rev., at 447 (emphasis added). 

And  third,  Edmond  noted  that  legislation  adopted  by
early Congresses revealed that inferior officers were subject
to the discretion and direct oversight of the principal officer.