Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-1434_ancf.pdf
Page Number: 12.0

8 

UNITED STATES v. ARTHREX, INC. 

Opinion of the Court 

singly  and  absolutely.”    The  Federalist  No.  77,  p. 517  (J. 
Cooke  ed.  1961)  (A.  Hamilton).  As  Hamilton  wrote,  the 
“sole and undivided responsibility of one man will naturally 
beget  a  livelier  sense  of  duty  and  a  more  exact  regard  to 
reputation.”  Id.,  No.  76,  at 510–511.    The  Appointments
Clause adds a degree of accountability in the Senate, which
shares  in  the  public  blame  “for  both  the  making  of  a  bad
appointment and the rejection of a good one.”  Edmond v. 
United States, 520 U. S. 651, 660 (1997). 

Only  the  President,  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the
Senate, can appoint noninferior officers, called “principal” 
officers as shorthand in our cases.  See id., at 659.  The “de-
fault  manner  of  appointment”  for  inferior  officers  is  also
nomination by the President and confirmation by the Sen-
ate.  Id., at 660.  But the Framers foresaw that “when offices 
became  numerous,  and  sudden  removals  necessary,  this
mode might be inconvenient.”  United States v. Germaine, 
99  U. S.  508,  510  (1879).    Reflecting  this  concern  for  “ad-
ministrative  convenience,”  the  Appointments  Clause  per-
mits Congress to dispense with joint appointment, but only 
for inferior officers.  Edmond, 520 U. S., at 660.  Congress
may vest the appointment of such officers “in the President
alone,  in  the  Courts  of  Law,  or  in  the  Heads  of  Depart-
ments.” 

B 
Congress provided that APJs would be appointed as infe-
rior officers, by the Secretary of Commerce as head of a de-
partment.  The question presented is whether the nature of 
their responsibilities is consistent with their method of ap-
pointment.  As  an  initial  matter,  no  party  disputes  that 
APJs  are  officers—not  “lesser  functionaries”  such  as  em-
ployees or contractors—because they “exercis[e] significant
authority pursuant to the laws of the United States.”  Buck-
ley v. Valeo, 424 U. S. 1, 126, and n. 162 (1976) (per curiam); 
see Lucia v. SEC, 585 U. S. ___, ___–___ (2018) (slip op., at