Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-1434_ancf.pdf
Page Number: 61.0

14 

UNITED STATES v. ARTHREX, INC. 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

Clause?5   And  are  courts  around  the  country  supposed  to
sort  through  lists  of  each  officer’s  (or  employee’s)  duties,
categorize each one as principal or inferior, and then excise
any that look problematic?

Beyond  those  questions,  the  majority’s  nebulous  ap-
proach also leaves open the question of how much “principal-
officer  power”  someone  must  wield  before  he  becomes  a 
principal officer.  What happens if an officer typically en-
gages  in  normal  inferior-officer  work  but  also  has  several 
principal-officer duties?  Is he a hybrid officer, properly ap-
pointed for four days a week and improperly appointed for 
the fifth?  And whatever test the Court ultimately comes up 
with to sort through these difficult questions, are we sure it
is encapsulated in the two words “inferior officer”? 

D 
The majority offers one last theory.  Although the parties
raise only an Appointments Clause challenge and the plu-
rality concedes that there is no appointment defect, ante, at 
23, the Court appears to suggest that the real issue is that 
this  scheme  violates  the  Vesting  Clause.    See  Art. II,  §1, 
cl.1; see also ante, at 13–14 (citing Free Enterprise Fund v. 
Public Company Accounting Oversight Bd., 561 U. S. 477, 
496  (2010));  Myers  v.  United  States,  272  U. S.  52,  135 
(1926)).  According to the majority, the PTAB’s review pro-
cess inverts the executive “chain of command,” allowing ad-
ministrative patent judges to wield “unchecked . . . execu-
tive  power”  and  to  “dictat[e ]”  what  the  Director  must  do. 
Ante, at 11, 14.  This final offering falters for several rea-
sons. 

First no court below passed on this issue.  See 941 F. 3d, 

—————— 

5 See Eaton, 169 U. S., at 343 (“The claim that Congress was without 
power to vest in the President the appointment of a subordinate officer 
called a vice-consul, to be charged with the duty of temporarily perform-
ing  the  functions  of  the  consular  office,  disregards  both  the  letter  and 
spirit of the Constitution”).