Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-1434_ancf.pdf
Page Number: 40.0

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

1 

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

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

Nos. 19–1434, 19–1452 and 19–1458 
_________________ 

UNITED STATES, PETITIONER 
v. 
ARTHREX, INC., ET AL. 

19–1434 

19–1452 

SMITH & NEPHEW, INC., ET AL., PETITIONERS 
v. 
ARTHREX, INC., ET AL. 

19–1458 

ARTHREX, INC., PETITIONER 
v. 
SMITH & NEPHEW, INC., ET AL. 

ON WRITS OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 
APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT 

[June 21, 2021] 

JUSTICE  BREYER,  with  whom  JUSTICE  SOTOMAYOR  and 
JUSTICE  KAGAN  join,  concurring  in  the  judgment  in  part 
and dissenting in part. 

I 

I agree with JUSTICE THOMAS’ discussion on the merits 
and I join Parts I and II of his dissent.  Two related consid-
erations also persuade me that his conclusion is correct. 

First, in my view, the Court should interpret the Appoint-
ments  Clause  as  granting  Congress  a  degree  of  leeway  to 
establish and empower federal offices.  Neither that Clause 
nor anything else in the Constitution describes the degree
of control that a superior officer must exercise over the de-
cisions of an inferior officer.  To the contrary, the Constitu-
tion says only that “Congress may by Law vest the Appoint-
ment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, . . . in