Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-1434_ancf.pdf
Page Number: 4

4 

UNITED STATES v. ARTHREX, INC. 

Syllabus 

1, 126.  Pp. 18–19.

THE CHIEF JUSTICE,  joined by  JUSTICE ALITO,  JUSTICE KAVANAUGH, 
and JUSTICE BARRETT, concluded in Part III that §6(c) cannot constitu-
tionally  be  enforced  to  the  extent  that  its  requirements  prevent  the 
Director from reviewing final decisions rendered by APJs.  The Direc-
tor  accordingly  may  review  final  PTAB  decisions  and,  upon  review, 
may issue decisions himself on behalf of the Board.  Section 6(c) other-
wise remains operative as to the other members of the PTAB.  When 
reviewing such a decision by the Director, a court must decide the case
“conformably  to  the  constitution,  disregarding  the  law”  placing  re-
strictions on his review authority in violation of Article II.  Marbury v. 
Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 178. 

The appropriate remedy is a remand to the Acting Director to decide 
whether  to  rehear  the  petition  filed  by  Smith  &  Nephew.    A  limited 
remand provides an adequate opportunity for review by a principal of-
ficer.  Because the source of the constitutional violation is the restraint 
on the review authority of the Director, rather than the appointment
of APJs by the Secretary, Arthrex is not entitled to a hearing before a
new panel of APJs.  Pp. 19–23.

 ROBERTS, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts
I  and  II,  in  which  ALITO,  GORSUCH,  KAVANAUGH,  and  BARRETT,  JJ., 
joined,  and  an  opinion  with  respect  to  Part  III,  in  which  ALITO,  KA-
VANAUGH, and BARRETT, JJ., joined.  GORSUCH, J., filed an opinion con-
curring in part and dissenting in part.  BREYER, J., filed an opinion con-
curring  in  the  judgment  in  part  and  dissenting  in  part,  in  which 
SOTOMAYOR and KAGAN, JJ., joined.  THOMAS, J., filed a dissenting opin-
ion, in which BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined as to Parts I 
and II.