Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-1434_ancf.pdf
Page Number: 52

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

5 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

majority)  has  identified  any  instance  in  which  this  Court 
has  found  unconstitutional  an  appointment  that  aligns 
with one of the two processes outlined in the Constitution. 
Our  most  exhaustive  treatment  of  the  inferior-officer 
question is found in Edmond.  There, we evaluated the sta-
tus of civilian judges on the Coast Guard Court of Criminal 
Appeals who were appointed by the Secretary of Transpor-
tation.  As in all previous decisions, the Court in Edmond 
held  that  the  Secretary’s  appointment  of  the  judges  com-
plied with the Appointments Clause. 

Recognizing  that  no  “definitive  test”  existed  for  distin-
guishing between inferior and principal officers, the Court
set out two general guidelines.  520 U. S., at 661–662.  First, 
there  is  a  formal,  definitional  requirement.  The  officer 
must be lower in rank to “a superior.”  Id., at 662.  But ac-
cording to the Court in Edmond, formal inferiority is “not 
enough.”  Ibid.  So the Court imposed a functional require-
ment: The inferior officer’s work must be “directed and su-
pervised  at  some  level  by  others  who  were  appointed  by 

—————— 
judge or arbitrator in such differences as may arise between the captains
and  crews  of  any  vessels  belonging  to  the  nations  whose  interests  are 
committed to his charge”; “institut[ing] prosecutions” and who enjoys “to 
a certain extent, independen[ce] in their statutory and judicial action,” 
United States v. Allred, 155 U. S. 591, 594–595 (1895); Go-Bart Import-
ing Co. v. United States, 282 U. S. 344, 352–354 (1931) (“United States 
commissioners  are  inferior  officers”);  an  independent  counsel,  charged 
with “ ‘full power and independent authority to exercise all investigative
and prosecutorial functions,’ ” Morrison, 487 U. S., at 661, 661–662, 671– 
672; special trial judges within the United States Tax Court “who exer-
cise independent authority” and may “hear certain specifically described 
proceedings” and may “render the decisions of the Tax Court in declara-
tory  judgment  proceedings  and  limited-amount  tax  cases,”  Freytag  v. 
Commissioner, 501 U. S. 868, 870–871, 882 (1991); judges on the Coast 
Guard Court of Criminal Appeals, Edmond, 520 U. S., at 653; and mem-
bers  of  the  Public  Company  Accounting  Oversight  Board  who  “deter-
min[e] the policy and enforc[e] the laws of the United States,” Free En-
terprise  Fund  v.  Public  Company  Accounting  Oversight  Bd.,  561  U. S. 
477, 484, 511 (2010).