Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/17-130_4f14.pdf
Page Number: 7.0

4 

LUCIA v. SEC 

Opinion of the Court 

authority  independent  of  [its  own]  supervision.”    Id.,  at 
88a.  Because  that  is  so  (said  the  SEC),  they  need  no
special, high-level appointment.  See id., at 86a. 

Lucia’s claim fared no better in the Court of Appeals for
the  D. C.  Circuit.    A  panel  of  that  court  seconded  the 
Commission’s  view  that  SEC  ALJs  are  employees  rather 
than  officers,  and  so  are  not  subject  to  the  Appointments
Clause.  See  832  F.  3d  277,  283–289  (2016).  Lucia  then 
petitioned  for  rehearing  en  banc.  The  Court  of  Appeals
granted that request and heard argument in the case.  But 
the  ten  members  of  the  en  banc  court  divided  evenly,
resulting in a per curiam order denying Lucia’s claim.  See 
868  F.  3d  1021  (2017).   That  decision  conflicted  with  one 
from  the  Court  of  Appeals  for  the  Tenth  Circuit.    See 
Bandimere v. SEC, 844 F. 3d 1168, 1179 (2016). 

Lucia asked us to resolve the split by deciding whether
the Commission’s ALJs are “Officers of the United States 
within the meaning of the Appointments Clause.”  Pet. for 
Cert.  i.  Up  to  that  point,  the  Federal  Government  (as 
represented  by  the  Department  of  Justice)  had  defended
the  Commission’s  position  that  SEC  ALJs  are  employees, 
not  officers.  But  in  responding  to  Lucia’s  petition,  the 
Government  switched  sides.1    So  when  we  granted  the
petition, 583 U. S. ___ (2018), we also appointed an amicus 
curiae to defend the judgment below.2  We now reverse. 

—————— 

1 In the same certiorari-stage brief, the Government asked us to add a
second  question  presented:  whether  the  statutory  restrictions  on
removing  the  Commission’s  ALJs  are  constitutional.    See  Brief  in 
Response  21.   When  we  granted  certiorari,  we  chose  not  to  take  that 
step.  See  583  U. S.  ___  (2018).    The  Government’s  merits  brief  now 
asks us again to address the removal issue.  See Brief for United States 
39–55.    We  once  more  decline.    No  court  has  addressed  that  question,
and  we  ordinarily  await  “thorough  lower  court  opinions  to  guide  our
analysis of the merits.”  Zivotofsky v. Clinton, 566 U. S. 189, 201 (2012).  
2 We appointed Anton Metlitsky to brief and argue the case, 583 U. S.

___ (2018), and he has ably discharged his responsibilities.