Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/17-130_4f14.pdf
Page Number: 39

Cite as:  585 U. S. ____ (2018) 

5 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

tions,” such as ruling on the admissibility of evidence and 
hearing  and  examining  witnesses.  501  U. S., at  881–882. 
That part of the opinion, however, was unnecessary to the 
result.  The  Court  went  on  to  conclude  that  even  if  the 
STJs’ duties in such cases were “not as significant as [the
Court]  found  them  to  be,”  its  conclusion  “would  be  un-
changed.”  Id.,  at  882.    The  Court  noted  that  STJs  could 
enter final decisions in certain types of cases, and that the 
Government had conceded that the STJs acted as officers 
with  respect  to  those  proceedings.    Ibid.   Because  STJs 
could  not  be  “officers  for  purposes  of  some  of  their  duties 
. . .  ,  but  mere  employees  with  respect  to  other[s],”  the 
Court held they were officers in all respects.  Ibid.  Freytag
is,  therefore,  consistent  with  a  rule  that  a  prerequisite  to
officer  status  is  the  authority,  in  at  least  some  instances,
to issue final decisions that bind the Government or third 
parties.*

Because I would conclude that Commission ALJs are not 
officers for purposes of the Appointments Clause, it is not
necessary  to  reach  the  constitutionality  of  their  removal 
protections.  See  ante,  at  1  (BREYER,  J.,  concurring  in
judgment in part and dissenting in part).  In any event, for 
at  least  the  reasons  stated  in  JUSTICE  BREYER’s  opinion, 
Free  Enterprise  Fund  is  readily  distinguishable  from  the
circumstances at play here.  See ante, at 3–9. 

As a final matter, although I would conclude that Com-
mission  ALJs  are  not  officers,  I  share  JUSTICE  BREYER’s 
concerns regarding the Court’s choice of remedy, and so I 
join Part III of his opinion. 

For the foregoing reasons, I respectfully dissent. 

—————— 

* Even  the  majority  opinion  is  not  inconsistent  with  such  a  rule,  in
that it appears to conclude, wrongly in my view, that Commission ALJs
can at times render final decisions.  See ante, at 10.