Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/13-352_c0n2.pdf
Page Number: 37.0

Cite as:  575 U. S. ____ (2015) 

11 

THOMAS, J., dissenting
 

A 

Executive agencies derive their authority from Article II
of the Constitution, which vests “[t]he executive power” in
“a President of the United States,” Art. II, §1, cl. 1.  Execu-
tive  agencies  are  thus  part  of  the  political  branches  of 
Government and make decisions “not by fixed rules of law, 
but  by  the  application  of  governmental  discretion  or  pol-
icy.”  Dickinson,  supra,  at  35–36;  see,  e.g.,  Motor  Vehicle 
Mfrs.  Assn.  of  United  States,  Inc.  v.  State  Farm  Mut. 
Automobile Ins. Co., 463 U. S. 29, 59 (1983) (Rehnquist, J., 
concurring  in  part  and  dissenting  in  part)  (An  agency  “is
entitled  to  assess  administrative  records  and  evaluate 
priorities in light of the philosophy of the administration”).
They  are  not  constituted  to  exercise  “independent  judg-
ment,” but to be responsive to the pressures of the political
branches.  Perez  v.  Mortgage  Bankers  Assn.,  ante,  at  8  
(THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment). 

Because federal administrative agencies are part of the
Executive  Branch,  it  is  not  clear  that  they  have  power  to 
adjudicate claims involving core private rights.  Under our 
Constitution,  the  “judicial  power”  belongs  to  Article  III 
courts  and  cannot  be  shared  with  the  Legislature  or  the
Executive.  Stern  v.  Marshall,  564  U. S.  ___,  ___–___ 
(2011)  (slip  op.,  at  16–17);  see  also  Perez,  ante,  at  8–11 
(opinion  of  THOMAS, J.).    And  some  historical  evidence 
suggests  that  the  adjudication  of  core  private  rights  is  a 
function  that  can  be  performed  only  by  Article  III  courts,
at least absent the consent of the parties to adjudication in 
another  forum.  See  Nelson,  Adjudication  in  the  Political
Branches,  107  Colum.  L. Rev.  559,  561–574  (2007)  (here-
inafter  Nelson);  see  also  Department  of  Transportation  v. 
Association of American Railroads, ante, at 4 (THOMAS, J., 
concurring  in  judgment)  (explaining  that  “there  are  cer-
tain core functions” that require the exercise of a particu-
lar  constitutional  power  and  that  only  one  branch  can
constitutionally perform).