Court Opinion

ID: 9486708
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 11:56:45.471412+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:51:52.776511
License: Public Domain

FLAUM, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
Judge Easterbrook has written an authoritative opinion that I join. I write separately not to address any deficiencies in the foregoing legal analysis — indeed, to my mind, there are none. Rather, I write simply to underscore a point that may appear understated in light of the framing of the issue presented here and the inexorable result we reached. As the linchpin of a vast network of agency decisionmaking, the oft-times heavily burdened and undervalued administrative law judiciary assumes duties and responsibilities that are functionally comparable to those of Article III judges. See Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478, 513-514, 98 S.Ct. 2894, 2914-2915, 57 L.Ed.2d 895 (1978); Ramspeck v. Federal Trial Examiners Conference, 345 U.S. 128, 73 S.Ct. 570, 97 L.Ed. 872 (1953). As the opinion points out, ante at 187, plain*190tiffs argument here rests on their belief that the work of ALJs at HHS is equivalent to work of ALJs elsewhere. Of course, it is not our role to resolve this question as an empirical matter and our decision today in no way should be read as doing so.