Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-1434_ancf.pdf
Page Number: 10

6 

UNITED STATES v. ARTHREX, INC. 

Opinion of the Court 

President alone, the head of an executive department, or a 
court.  Art. II, §2, cl. 2.  Arthrex argued that the APJs were
principal officers and therefore that their appointment by
the Secretary of Commerce was unconstitutional.  The Gov-
ernment intervened to defend the appointment procedure.
The Federal Circuit agreed with Arthrex that APJs were
principal officers.  941 F. 3d 1320, 1335 (2019).  Neither the 
Secretary nor Director had the authority to review their de-
cisions or to remove them at will.  The Federal Circuit held 
that  these  restrictions  meant  that  APJs  were  themselves 
principal officers, not inferior officers under the direction of
the Secretary or Director. 

To fix this constitutional violation, the Federal Circuit in-
validated  the  tenure  protections  for  APJs.    Making  APJs 
removable at will by the Secretary, the panel held, prospec-
tively “renders them inferior rather than principal officers.” 
Id., at 1338.  The Federal Circuit vacated the PTAB’s deci-
sion and remanded for a fresh hearing before a new panel 
of APJs, who would no longer enjoy protection against re-
moval.  Id., at 1338–1340. 

This  satisfied  no  one.    The  Government,  Smith  & 
Nephew,  and  Arthrex  each  requested  rehearing  en  banc, 
which  the  Court  of  Appeals  denied.  953  F. 3d  760,  761 
(2020) (per curiam).  The parties then requested review of 
different  aspects  of  the  panel’s  decision  in  three  petitions 
for certiorari. 

We  granted  those  petitions  to  consider  whether  the
PTAB’s  structure  is  consistent  with  the  Appointments
Clause, and the appropriate remedy if it is not.  592 U. S. 
___ (2020). 

II 
A 
The President is “ ‘responsible for the actions of the Exec-
utive  Branch’ ”  and  “ ‘cannot  delegate  [that]  ultimate  re-
sponsibility or the active obligation to supervise that goes