Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-712_87ad.pdf
Page Number: 24.0

Cite as:  584 U. S. ____ (2018) 

3 

GORSUCH, J., dissenting 

Director  of  the  Patent  Office  is  a  political  appointee  who 
serves  at  the  pleasure  of  the  President.    35  U. S. C. 
§§3(a)(1), (a)(4).  He supervises and pays the Board mem-
bers  responsible  for  deciding  patent  disputes.    §§1(a), 
3(b)(6),  6(a).    The  Director  is  allowed  to  select  which  of 
these  members,  and  how  many  of  them,  will  hear  any 
particular patent challenge.  See §6(c).  If they (somehow) 
reach a result he does not like, the Director can add more 
members  to  the  panel—including  himself—and  order  the 
case reheard.  See §§6(a), (c); In re Alappat, 33 F. 3d 1526, 
1535  (CA  Fed.  1994)  (en  banc);  Nidec  Motor  Corp.  v. 
Zhongshan  Broad  Ocean  Motor  Co.  Ltd.,  868  F. 3d  1013, 
1020  (CA  Fed.  2013)  (Dyk,  J.,  concurring),  cert.  pending, 
No.  17–751.    Nor  has  the  Director  proven  bashful  about 
asserting  these  statutory  powers  to  secure  the  “ ‘policy 
judgments’ ”  he  seeks.    Brief  for  Petitioner  46  (quoting 
Patent  Office  Solicitor);  see  also  Brief  for  Shire  Pharma-
ceuticals LLC as Amicus Curiae 22–30. 
  No doubt this efficient scheme is well intended.  But can 
there  be  any  doubt  that  it  also  represents  a  retreat  from 
the  promise  of  judicial  independence?    Or  that  when  an 
independent Judiciary gives ground to bureaucrats in the 
adjudication  of  cases,  the  losers  will  often  prove  the  un-
popular and vulnerable?  Powerful interests are capable of 
amassing  armies  of  lobbyists  and  lawyers  to  influence 
(and  even  capture)  politically  accountable  bureaucracies.  
But what about everyone else? 
  Of course, all this invites the question: how do we know 
which cases independent judges must hear?  The Constitu-
tion’s  original  public  meaning  supplies  the  key,  for  the 
Constitution  cannot  secure  the  people’s  liberty  any  less 
today  than  it  did  the  day  it  was  ratified.    The  relevant 
constitutional  provision,  Article  III,  explains  that  the 
federal  “judicial  Power”  is  vested  in  independent  judges.  
As  originally  understood,  the  judicial  power  extended  to 
“suit[s]  at  the  common  law,  or  in  equity,  or  admiralty.”