Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/17-130_4f14.pdf
Page Number: 25

Cite as:  585 U. S. ____ (2018) 

5 

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

Thus, the Court seemed not only to limit its holding to the 
Board members themselves, but also to suggest that Gov-
ernment employees who were not officers would be distin-
guishable from the Board members on that ground alone.

For present purposes, however, the implications of Free 
Enterprise  Fund’s  technical-sounding  holding  about  “mul-
tilevel  protection  from  removal”  remain  potentially  dra-
matic.  561 U. S., at 484.  The same statute, the Adminis-
trative Procedure Act, that provides that the “agency” will
appoint  its  administrative  law  judges  also  protects  the 
administrative law judges from removal without cause.  In 
particular, the statute says that an 

“action  may  be  taken  against  an  administrative  law
judge appointed under section 3105 of this title by the
agency  in  which  the  administrative  law  judge  is  em-
ployed only for good cause established and determined 
by  the  Merit  Systems  Protection  Board  on  the  record
after  opportunity  for  hearing  before  the  Board.”    5 
U. S. C. §7521(a). 

As  with  appointments,  this  provision  constituted  an  im-
portant part of the Administrative Procedure Act when it
was originally enacted in 1946.  See §11, 60 Stat. 244.

The Administrative Procedure Act thus allows adminis-
trative  law  judges  to  be  removed  only  “for  good  cause”
found  by  the  Merit  Systems  Protection  Board.  §7521(a).
And  the  President  may,  in  turn,  remove  members  of  the 
Merit  Systems  Protection  Board  only  for  “inefficiency, 
neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.”  §1202(d).  Thus, 
Congress  seems  to  have  provided  administrative  law
judges with two levels of protection from removal without 
cause—just  what  Free  Enterprise  Fund  interpreted  the 
Constitution to forbid in the case of the Board members. 

The  substantial  independence  that  the  Administrative 
Procedure  Act’s  removal  protections  provide  to  adminis-
trative  law  judges  is  a  central  part  of  the  Act’s  overall