Opinion ID: 4111397
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Inferior Officers and the Supreme Court

Text: The Supreme Court has defined an officer generally as “any appointee exercising significant authority pursuant to the laws of the United States.” Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 126 (1976) (per curiam). The term “inferior officer” “connotes a relationship with some higher ranking officer or officers below the President: Whether one is an ‘inferior’ officer depends on whether he has a superior.” Edmond, 520 U.S. at 662.7 7 Other uses of “inferior” in the Constitution confirm the term speaks to a hierarchical, subordinate-superior relationship. The word appears once in Article I and twice in Article III, each time describing courts “inferior” to the Supreme Court. U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 9; id. art. III, § 1; see also Akhil Reed Amar, Intratextualism, 112 Harv. L. Rev. 747, 805-07 (1999) (discussing the use of “inferior” in Articles I, II, and III). Statements from Alexander Hamilton and James Madison also indicate “inferior” means subordinate. In Federalist No. 81, Hamilton described inferior courts as those “subordinate to the Supreme.” The Federalist No. 81, at 484 (Alexander Hamilton) (Clinton Rossiter ed., 1961). In the brief debate about the Excepting Clause at the Federal Constitutional Convention in 1787, Madison “mention[ed] (as in apparent Continued . . . -7- This description of “inferior” may aid in understanding the distinction between principal and inferior officers. But we are concerned here with the distinction between inferior officers and employees. Like inferior officers, employees—or “lesser functionaries”—are subordinates. Buckley, 424 U.S. at 126 n.162. Justice Breyer has provided this summary of the different ways the Supreme Court has described inferior officers: Consider the [Supreme] Court’s definitions: Inferior officers are, inter alia, (1) those charged with “the administration and enforcement of the public law,” Buckley, 424 U.S. at 139; (2) those granted “significant authority,” id. at 126; (3) those with “responsibility for conducting civil litigation in the courts of the United States,” id. at 140; and (4) those “who can be said to hold an office,” United States v. Germaine, 99 U.S. 508, 510 (1879), that has been created either by “regulations” or by “statute,” United States v. Mouat, 124 U.S. 303, 307-08 (1888). Free Enter. Fund v. PCAOB, 561 U.S. 477, 539 (2010) (Breyer, J., dissenting) (citation style altered and some citations omitted). The list below contains examples of inferior officers drawn from Supreme Court cases spanning more than 150 years: ______________________________________ Cont. contrast to the ‘inferior officers’ covered by the provision) ‘Superior Officers.’” Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. 654, 720 (1988) (Scalia, J., dissenting) (citing 2 The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 627-28 (M. Farrand ed., rev. ed. 1966)). He also referred to “subordinate officers” in contradistinction to “principal officers” when explaining the appointment power during the Virginia ratification convention. 3 The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution 409-10 (Jonathan Elliot ed., 2d ed. 1836); see also Tuan Samahon, Are Bankruptcy Judges Unconstitutional? An Appointments Clause Challenge, 60 Hastings L.J. 233, 251 (2008) (discussing Madison’s remarks at the Virginia convention). -8-  a district court clerk, In re Hennen, 38 U.S. (13 Pet.) 230, 258 (1839);  an “assistant-surgeon,” United States v. Moore, 95 U.S. 760, 762 (1877);  “thousands of clerks in the Departments of the Treasury, Interior, and the othe[r]” departments, Germaine, 99 U.S. at 511 (1878);  an election supervisor, Ex parte Siebold, 100 U.S. 371, 397-98 (1879);  a federal marshal, id. at 397;  a “cadet engineer” appointed by the Secretary of the Navy, United States v. Perkins, 116 U.S. 483, 484-85 (1886);  a “commissioner of the circuit court,” United States v. Allred, 155 U.S. 591, 594-96 (1895);  a vice consul temporarily exercising the duties of a consul, United States v. Eaton, 169 U.S. 331, 343 (1898);  extradition commissioners, Rice v. Ames, 180 U.S. 371, 378 (1901);  a United States commissioner in district court proceedings, Go-Bart Importing Co. v. United States, 282 U.S. 344, 352-54 (1931);  a postmaster first class, Buckley, 424 U.S. at 126 (1976) (citing Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52 (1926));  Federal Election Commission (“FEC”) commissioners, id.;  an independent counsel, Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. 654, 671 (1988);  Tax Court special trial judges, Freytag, 501 U.S. at 881-82 (1991); and  military judges, Weiss v. United States, 510 U.S. 163, 170 (1994); Edmond, 520 U.S. at 666 (1997).8 8 See also Edmond, 520 U.S. at 661 (listing examples of inferior officers); Free Enter. Fund, 561 U.S. at 540 (Breyer, J., dissenting) (listing examples of officers). -9- We think these examples are relevant and instructive. Although the Supreme Court has not stated a specific test for inferior officer status, “[e]fforts to define [‘inferior Officers’] inevitably conclude that the term’s sweep is unusually broad,” Free Enter. Fund, 561 U.S. at 539 (Breyer, J., dissenting), and the Freytag opinion provides the guidance needed to decide this appeal.