Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/17-130_4f14.pdf
Page Number: 17.0

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

1 

THOMAS, J., concurring 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 17–130 
_________________ 

RAYMOND J. LUCIA, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. 
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 

APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
 

[June 21, 2018] 

JUSTICE  THOMAS,  with  whom  JUSTICE  GORSUCH  joins,

concurring. 

I agree with the Court that this case is indistinguishable 
from Freytag v. Commissioner, 501 U. S. 868 (1991).  If the 
special trial judges in Freytag were “Officers of the United 
States,”  Art. II,  §2,  cl. 2,  then  so  are  the  administrative
law  judges  of  the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission.
Moving  forward,  however,  this  Court  will  not  be  able  to
decide every Appointments Clause case by comparing it to 
Freytag.  And, as the Court acknowledges, our precedents 
in this area do not provide much guidance.  See ante, at 6. 
While precedents like Freytag discuss what is sufficient to 
make  someone  an  officer  of  the  United  States,  our  prece-
I 
dents  have  never  clearly  defined  what  is  necessary. 
would  resolve  that  question  based  on  the  original  public 
meaning of “Officers of the United States.”  To the Found-
ers, this term encompassed all federal civil officials “ ‘with 
responsibility  for  an  ongoing  statutory  duty.’ ”  NLRB  v. 
SW  General,  Inc.,  580  U. S.  ___,  ___  (2017)  (THOMAS,  J., 
concurring)  (slip  op.,  at  4);  Mascott,  Who  Are  “Officers
of  the  United  States”?  70  Stan.  L. Rev.  443,  564  (2018) 
(Mascott).1 

—————— 

1 I  address  only  the  dividing  line  between  “Officers  of  the  United 
States,”  who  are  subject  to  the  Appointments  Clause,  and  nonofficer