Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-1434_ancf.pdf
Page Number: 41.0

2 

UNITED STATES v. ARTHREX, INC. 

BREYER, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part
Opinion of BREYER, J. 

the Heads of Departments.”  Art. II, §2, cl. 2.  The words “by 
Law  . . .  as  they  think  proper”  strongly  suggest  that  Con-
gress has considerable freedom to determine the nature of 
an inferior officer’s job, and that courts ought to respect that
judgment.  See Lucia v. SEC, 585 U. S. ___, ___–___ (2018) 
(BREYER, J., concurring in judgment in part and dissenting 
in  part)  (slip  op.,  at  9–10).    In  a  word,  the  Constitution 
grants to Congress the “authority to create both categories 
of offices—those the President must fill with the Senate’s 
concurrence and ‘inferior’ ones. . . . That constitutional as-
signment  to  Congress  counsels  judicial  deference.”    In  re 
Sealed Case, 838 F. 2d 476, 532 (CADC) (R. Ginsburg, J.,
dissenting), rev’d sub nom. Morrison v. Olson, 487 U. S. 654 
(1988).  Article I’s grant to Congress of broad authority to 
enact laws of different kinds concerning different subjects—
and to implement those laws in ways that Congress deter-
mines are “necessary and proper”—suggests the same.  Art. 
I, §8, cl. 18.

Even a small degree of “judicial deference” should prove
sufficient to validate the statutes here.  For one, the provi-
sions at issue fall well within Article I’s grant to Congress 
of the patent power.  Nothing in them represents an effort
by the “Legislative Branch [to] aggrandize itself at the ex-
pense  of  the  other  two  branches.”    Buckley  v.  Valeo,  424 
U. S.  1,  129  (1976)  (per  curiam).  There  is  accordingly  no
general separation-of-powers defect that has arisen in other 
cases.  See, e.g., Metropolitan Washington Airports Author-
ity v. Citizens for Abatement of Aircraft Noise, Inc., 501 U. S. 
252, 277 (1991).

For another, Congress’ scheme is consistent with our Ap-
pointments Clause precedents.  They require only that an
inferior officer be “directed and supervised at some level,” 
Edmond v. United States, 520 U. S. 651, 663 (1997), and the 
Administrative Patent Judges (APJs) are supervised by two
separate  Senate-confirmed  officers,  the  Secretary  of  Com-
merce and the Director of the Patent and Trademark Office