Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-712_87ad.pdf
Page Number: 23.0

2 

OIL STATES ENERGY SERVICES, LLC v. GREENE’S 
ENERGY GROUP, LLC 
GORSUCH, J., dissenting 

judges  “hold  their  Offices  during  good  Behaviour”  and 
their  “Compensation  . . .  shall  not  be  diminished  during 
the[ir]  Continuance  in  Office.”    Art.  III,  §1.    The  framers 
knew that “a fixed provision” for judges’ financial support 
would  help  secure  “the  independence  of  the  judges,”  be-
cause  “a  power  over  a  man’s  subsistence  amounts  to  a 
power  over  his  will.”    The  Federalist  No.  79,  p. 472  (C. 
Rossiter ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton) (emphasis deleted).  They 
were  convinced,  too,  that  “[p]eriodical  appointments, 
however  regulated,  or  by  whomsoever  made,  would,  in 
some way or other, be fatal to [the courts’] necessary inde-
pendence.”  The Federalist No. 78, at 471 (A. Hamilton). 
  Today,  the  government  invites  us  to  retreat  from  the 
promise  of  judicial  independence.    Until  recently,  most 
everyone considered an issued patent a personal right—no 
less  than  a  home  or  farm—that  the  federal  government 
could  revoke  only  with  the  concurrence  of  independent 
judges.  But in the statute before us Congress has tapped 
an  executive  agency,  the  Patent  Trial  and  Appeal  Board, 
for  the  job.    Supporters  say  this  is  a  good  thing  because 
the  Patent  Office  issues  too  many  low  quality  patents; 
allowing  a  subdivision  of  that  office  to  clean  up  problems 
after  the  fact,  they  assure  us,  promises  an  efficient  solu-
tion.    And,  no  doubt,  dispensing  with  constitutionally 
prescribed  procedures  is  often  expedient.    Whether  it  is 
the  guarantee  of  a  warrant  before  a  search,  a  jury  trial 
before  a  conviction—or,  yes,  a  judicial  hearing  before  a 
property  interest  is  stripped  away—the  Constitution’s 
constraints  can  slow  things  down.    But  economy  supplies 
no  license  for  ignoring  these—often  vitally  inefficient— 
protections.  The Constitution “reflects a judgment by the 
American people that the benefits of its restrictions on the 
Government outweigh the costs,” and it is not our place to 
replace  that  judgment  with  our  own.    United  States  v. 
Stevens, 559 U. S. 460, 470 (2010). 
  Consider just how efficient the statute before us is.  The