Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-1434_ancf.pdf
Page Number: 48

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

1 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

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 THOMAS, with whom JUSTICE BREYER, JUSTICE 
SOTOMAYOR, and JUSTICE KAGAN  join as to Parts I and II,
dissenting. 

For the very first time, this Court holds that Congress 
violated the Constitution by vesting the appointment of a
federal officer in the head of a department.  Just who are 
these  “principal”  officers  that  Congress  unsuccessfully
sought to smuggle into the Executive Branch without Sen-
ate confirmation?  About 250 administrative patent judges
who  sit  at  the  bottom  of  an  organizational  chart,  nestled 
under at least two levels of authority.  Neither our prece-
dent  nor  the  original  understanding  of  the  Appointments
Clause requires Senate confirmation of officers inferior to
not one, but two officers below the President.