Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/13-1041_0861.pdf
Page Number: 32

8 

PEREZ v. MORTGAGE BANKERS ASSN. 

THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment 

(C. Rossiter ed. 1961) (J. Madison). 

To  the  Framers,  the  separation  of  powers  and  checks
and  balances  were  more  than  just  theories.  They  were
practical and real protections for individual liberty in the
new  Constitution.  See  Mistretta  v.  United  States,  488 
U. S.  361,  426  (1989)  (SCALIA,  J.,  dissenting)  (“[The  Con-
stitution]  is  a  prescribed  structure,  a  framework,  for  the 
conduct  of  government.    In  designing  that  structure,  the 
Framers themselves considered how much commingling [of 
governmental  powers]  was,  in  the  generality  of  things, 
acceptable,  and  set  forth  their  conclusions  in  the  docu-
ment”).  The  Judiciary—no  less  than  the  other  two
branches—has  an  obligation  to  guard  against  deviations
from  those  principles.    The  Seminole  Rock  line  of  prece-
dent is one such deviation. 

B 
Seminole  Rock  raises  two  related  constitutional  con-
cerns.  It  represents  a  transfer  of  judicial  power  to  the
Executive  Branch,  and  it  amounts  to  an  erosion  of  the 
judicial  obligation  to  serve  as  a  “check”  on  the  political 
branches. 

1 
When  a  party  properly  brings  a  case  or  controversy  to
an  Article  III  court,  that  court  is  called  upon  to  exercise
the “judicial Power of the United States.”  Art. III, §1.  For 
the reasons I explain in this section, the judicial power, as 
originally  understood,  requires  a  court  to  exercise  its
independent  judgment  in  interpreting  and  expounding 
upon the laws. 

Those  who  ratified  the  Constitution  knew  that  legal 
texts  would  often  contain  ambiguities.  See  generally
Molot,  The  Judicial  Perspective  in  the  Administrative
State: Reconciling Modern Doctrines of Deference with the 
Judiciary’s Structural Role, 53 Stan. L. Rev. 1, 20–21, and