Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-712_87ad.pdf
Page Number: 9.0

6 

OIL STATES ENERGY SERVICES, LLC v. GREENE’S 
ENERGY GROUP, LLC 
Opinion of the Court 

Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.”  §1.  
Consequently,  Congress  cannot  “confer  the  Government’s 
‘judicial  Power’  on  entities  outside  Article  III.”    Stern  v. 
Marshall,  564  U. S.  462,  484  (2011).    When  determining 
whether  a  proceeding  involves  an  exercise  of  Article  III 
judicial power, this Court’s precedents have distinguished 
between  “public  rights”  and  “private  rights.”    Executive 
Benefits  Ins.  Agency  v.  Arkison,  573  U. S.  ___,  ___  (2014) 
(slip op., at 6) (internal quotation marks omitted).  Those 
precedents  have  given  Congress  significant  latitude  to 
assign  adjudication  of  public  rights  to  entities  other  than 
Article III courts.  See ibid.; Stern, supra, at 488–492. 
  This  Court  has  not  “definitively  explained”  the  distinc-
tion  between  public  and  private  rights,  Northern  Pipeline 
Constr.  Co.  v.  Marathon  Pipe  Line  Co.,  458  U. S.  50,  69 
(1982),  and  its  precedents  applying  the  public-rights  doc-
trine have “not been entirely consistent,” Stern, 564 U. S., 
at  488.    But  this  case  does  not  require  us  to  add  to  the 
“various formulations” of the public-rights doctrine.  Ibid.  
Our  precedents  have  recognized  that  the  doctrine  covers 
matters  “which  arise  between  the  Government  and  per-
sons  subject  to  its  authority  in  connection  with  the  per-
formance of the constitutional functions of the executive or 
legislative departments.”  Crowell v. Benson, 285 U. S. 22, 
50  (1932).    In  other  words,  the  public-rights  doctrine  ap-
plies  to  matters  “ ‘arising  between  the  government  and 
others,  which  from  their  nature  do  not  require  judicial 
determination and yet  are susceptible of it.’ ”  Ibid. (quot-
ing  Ex  parte  Bakelite  Corp.,  279  U. S.  438,  451  (1929)).  
Inter  partes  review  involves  one  such  matter:  reconsid- 
eration  of  the  Government’s  decision  to  grant  a  public 
franchise. 

A 
  Inter  partes  review  falls  squarely  within  the  public-
rights  doctrine.    This  Court  has  recognized,  and  the  par-