Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-1434_ancf.pdf
Page Number: 58

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

11 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

in other ways: The military judges could not render “a final 
decision on behalf of the United States unless permitted to 
do  so  by  other  Executive  officers.”  Id.,  at  665.  Here,  the 
Director cannot singlehandedly reevaluate individual deci-
sions,  but  he  still  directs  and  “supervises  . . .  the  Board 
members  responsible  for  deciding  patent  disputes.”  Oil 
States Energy Services, 584 U. S., at ___ (GORSUCH, J., dis-
senting) (slip op., at 3). 

C 
Perhaps the better way to understand the Court’s opinion
today is as creating a new form of intrabranch separation-
of-powers law.  Traditionally, the Court’s task when resolv-
ing  Appointments  Clause  challenges  has  been  to  discern 
whether the challenged official qualifies as a specific sort of 
officer and whether his appointment complies with the Con-
stitution.  See Lucia v. SEC, 585 U. S. ___, ___ (2018) (slip 
op., at 1) (“This case requires us to decide whether admin-
istrative  law  judges  . . .  qualify  as  [officers  of  the  United 
States]”).  If the official’s appointment is inconsistent with 
the constitutional appointment process for the position he 
holds, then the Court provides a remedy.  Id., at ___ (slip 
op.,  at  12).  Otherwise,  the  Court  must  conclude  that  the 
“appointments  at  issue  in  th[e]  case  are  . . .  valid.”  Ed-
mond, 520 U. S., at 666. 

Today’s majority leaves that tried-and-true approach be-
hind.  It  never  expressly  tells  us  whether  administrative 
patent  judges  are  inferior  officers  or  principal.    And  the 
Court never tells us whether the appointment process com-
plies with the Constitution.  The closest the Court comes is 
to say that “the source of the constitutional violation” is not 
“the appointment of [administrative patent judges] by the
Secretary.”  Ante, at 23 (plurality opinion).  Under our prec-
edent  and  the  Constitution’s  text,  that  should  resolve  the 
suit.  If the appointment process for administrative patent
judges—appointment  by  the  Secretary—does  not  violate