Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-1434_ancf.pdf
Page Number: 54

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

7 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

But this lack of complete control did not render the mili-
tary  judges  principal  officers.    That  is  because  one  of  the 
two missing powers resided, to a limited degree, in a differ-
ent  entity:  the  CAAF.  Ibid.   CAAF  could  not  “reevaluate 
the facts” where “there [was] some competent evidence in 
the record to establish each element of the offense beyond a 
reasonable doubt.”  Id., at 665.  Still, it was “significant . . .
that the judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals ha[d] no
power  to  render  a  final  decision  on  behalf  of  the  United
States  unless  permitted  to  do  so  by  other  Executive  offic-
ers.”  Ibid.  Having recounted the various means of super-
vision, the Court held that the military judges were inferior 
officers.  Consistent  with  the  Constitution,  Congress  had 
the power to vest the judges’ appointments in the Secretary
of Transportation.  Id., at 665–666. 

The  Director  here  possesses  even  greater  functional 
power over the Board than that possessed by the Judge Ad-
vocate General.  Like the Judge Advocate General, the Di-
rector  exercises  administrative  oversight  over  the  Board. 
Because the Board is within the Patent and Trademark Of-
fice, all of its powers and duties are ultimately held by the 
Director.  35  U. S. C.  §3(a)(1).    He  “direct[s]”  and  “super-
vis[es]” the Office and “the issuance of patents.”  §3(a)(2)(A).
He may even “fix the rate of basic pay for the administrative
patent judges.”  §3(b)(6).  And ultimately, after the Board
has reached a decision in a specific case, the Director alone
has the power to take final action to cancel a patent claim 
or confirm it. §318(b).

Also like the Judge Advocate General in Edmond, the Di-
rector prescribes uniform procedural rules and formulates
policies  and  procedures  for  Board  proceedings.    Among
other things, he has issued detailed regulations that govern
“Trial Practice and Procedure” before the Board.  37 CFR 
pt. 42 (2020); see also ibid. (prescribing regulations govern-
ing,  inter  alia,  discovery,  oral  argument,  termination  of 
trial, notice, privilege, filing fees, etc.); see also 35 U. S. C.