DOCSLIB.ORG

Officers of the United States”?

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Officers of the United States”? Stanford Law Review Volume 70 February 2018 ARTICLE Who Are “Officers of the United States”? Jennifer L. Mascott* Abstract. For decades courts have believed that only officials with “significant authority” are “Officers of the United States” subject to the Constitution’s Article II Appointments Clause requirements. But this standard has proved difficult to apply to major categories of officials. This Article examines whether “significant authority” is even the proper standard, at least as that standard has been applied in modern practice. To uncover whether the modern understanding of the term “officer” is consistent with the term’s original public meaning, this Article uses two distinctive tools: (i) corpus linguistics-style analysis of Founding-era documents and (ii) examination of appointment practices during the First Congress following constitutional ratification. Both suggest that the original public meaning of “officer” is much broader than modern doctrine assumes— encompassing any government official with responsibility for an ongoing governmental duty. This historic meaning of “officer” would likely extend to thousands of officials not currently appointed as Article II officers, such as tax collectors, disaster relief officials, customs officials, and administrative judges. This conclusion might at first seem destructive to the civil service structure because it would involve redesignating these officials as Article II officers—not employees outside the scope of Article II’s requirements. But this Article suggests that core components of the current federal hiring system might fairly readily be brought into compliance with Article II by amending who exercises final approval to rank and hire candidates. These feasible but significant changes would restore * Assistant Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University. Earlier drafts of this article were written as an Olin-Searle Fellow in Law affiliated with Georgetown University Law Center and the George Washington University Law School. This article benefited from feedback received during presentations at Northwestern’s Public Law Colloquium; the Administrative Law New Scholarship Roundtable hosted by the Ohio State University Moritz College of Law; the Center for the Study of Constitutional Originalism at the University of San Diego School of Law; the George Washington University Law School’s faculty lunch workshop series; the Federalist Society’s Junior Scholars Colloquium; and the Georgetown Law Fellows Collaborative. Particular thanks for helpful comments and conversations are due to Aditya Bamzai, Randy Barnett, Will Baude, Bill Buzbee, Jud Campbell, Shon Hopwood, Greg Maggs, Dina Mishra, Jonathan Mitchell, Stephen Mouritsen, Eloise Pasachoff, James Phillips, Richard Re, Matt Shapiro, Ryan Scoville, Jonathan Siegel, Larry Solum, Seth Barrett Tillman, and Robin West. I am also grateful for excellent research assistance from Daniel Shapiro. 443 Who Are “Officers of the United States”? 70 STAN. L. REV. 443 (2018) a critical mechanism for democratic accountability and transparency inherent in the Appointments Clause. 444 Who Are “Officers of the United States”? 70 STAN. L. REV. 443 (2018) Table of Contents Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................ 447 I. Article II’s Role Within the Constitutional System and Current Doctrine ............. 458 II. Corpus Linguistics and the Original Public Meaning Analysis ...................................... 465 A. Orienting the Appointments Clause Within the Constitutional Text ............ 470 1. Evidence of meaning within the Constitution .................................................... 470 2. Is “Officer[] of the United States” an indivisible term of art? ........................ 471 a. Clues within the constitutional text................................................................ 471 b. Drafting history .......................................................................................................... 472 c. Founding-era debates ............................................................................................... 474 d. Continental Congress-era uses of “Officers of the United States” ....................................................................................................... 475 e. Early American newspapers ................................................................................ 478 f. Evidence to the contrary? ...................................................................................... 480 B. Dictionaries and Commentaries as Both a Standard Interpretive Tool and a Corpus....................................................................................................................................... 484 1. Standard interpretive use of Founding-era dictionaries and commentaries ................................................................................................................ 485 a. Dictionaries .................................................................................................................... 486 b. Legal dictionaries and commentaries.............................................................. 488 2. Nathan Bailey’s eighteenth century dictionary as a corpus .......................... 490 C. Elliot’s Debates and Farrand’s Records ...................................................................................... 494 1. Elliot’s Debates ........................................................................................................................... 496 2. Farrand’s Records .................................................................................................................... 498 D. The Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Essays ................................................ 500 E. Correspondence and Writings from Founding-Era Figures.................................. 504 F. Is Corpus Analysis Relevant for Widely Used, Open-Ended Constitutional Terms? ................................................................................................................. 506 III. Confirmatory Evidence from Practice During the First Congress ............................... 507 A. Typical Executive Departmental Structure..................................................................... 510 B. Deputies ................................................................................................................................................ 515 1. Deputy customs officials ................................................................................................... 517 2. Deputy marshals .................................................................................................................... 518 3. Other “deputy” references in statutes enacted by the First Congress ...... 520 C. Officers of the Customs ............................................................................................................... 523 D. Officials in other contexts .......................................................................................................... 528 1. The military ............................................................................................................................. 528 2. Revenue cutters ..................................................................................................................... 531 3. The national bank ................................................................................................................ 531 4. Various commissions .......................................................................................................... 531 5. Internal revenue .................................................................................................................... 532 6. The State Department ........................................................................................................ 533 445 Who Are “Officers of the United States”? 70 STAN. L. REV. 443 (2018) E. Contractors and the Ongoing Nature of Officer Positions ...................................... 534 F. Preconstitutional “Officers” Under the Continental Congress ............................. 537 1. Handwritten “officer” lists at the National Archives ........................................ 540 2. Military hospital officials ................................................................................................ 541 3. Board of Treasury clerks .................................................................................................. 542 4. Post office officials ............................................................................................................... 544 IV. The Historic Officer Definition in Modern Administration ............................................ 545 A. Present-Day “Officers” Under Article II’s Original Meaning ................................. 546 1. The Federal Emergency Management Agency .................................................... 546 2. The competitive service .................................................................................................... 548 a. The IRS’s Office of Chief Counsel and non-department head appointing authority ................................................................................................ 549 b. Customs officials and the competitive service ranking system ....... 550 3. Other potential
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Creating a French Enemy in the United States During the 1790S Quasi-War and the 2003 Iraq War Diplomatic Crisis
    Angles New Perspectives on the Anglophone World 10 | 2020 Creating the Enemy Cannibals, Monsters and Weasels: Creating a French Enemy in the United States during the 1790s Quasi-War and the 2003 Iraq War Diplomatic Crisis Hervé-Thomas Campangne Electronic version URL: http://journals.openedition.org/angles/408 DOI: 10.4000/angles.408 ISSN: 2274-2042 Publisher Société des Anglicistes de l'Enseignement Supérieur Electronic reference Hervé-Thomas Campangne, « Cannibals, Monsters and Weasels: Creating a French Enemy in the United States during the 1790s Quasi-War and the 2003 Iraq War Diplomatic Crisis », Angles [Online], 10 | 2020, Online since 01 April 2020, connection on 28 July 2020. URL : http:// journals.openedition.org/angles/408 ; DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/angles.408 This text was automatically generated on 28 July 2020. Angles. New Perspectives on the Anglophone World is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution- NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. Cannibals, Monsters and Weasels: Creating a French Enemy in the United States... 1 Cannibals, Monsters and Weasels: Creating a French Enemy in the United States during the 1790s Quasi-War and the 2003 Iraq War Diplomatic Crisis Hervé-Thomas Campangne 1 Countless U.S. presidents and leaders, including Ronald Reagan, Barack Obama and Donald Trump, have reminded Americans that France is their country’s “oldest ally” (Riché 2013; Seelow 2013; Obama 2015; Serhan 2017). Likewise, many a French official has underscored the unwavering and “natural” quality of the commitment between France and the United States (De Gaulle 1965; Mitterrand 1984; Macron 2018). Yet political scientists and historians often point to the cyclical nature of French-American relations (Duroselle 1978; Bozo and Parmentier 2007: 545).
    [Show full text]
  • The Federalist Era 1787-1800
    THE FEDERALIST ERA 1787-1800 Articles of Confederation: the first form of government. *NATIONAL GOVERNMENT TOO WEAK! Too much state power “friendship of states” examples of being too weak: • No President/No executive • Congress can’t tax or raise an army • States are coining their own money • Foreign troubles (British on the frontier, French in New Orleans) Shays’ Rebellion: Daniel Shays is a farmer in Massachusetts protesting tax collectors. The rebellion is a wake up call - recognize we need a new government Constitutional Convention of 1787: Delegates meet to revise the Articles, instead draft a new Constitution • Major issue discussed = REPRESENTATION IN CONGRESS (more representatives in Congress, more influence you have in passing laws/policies in your favor) NJ Plan (equal per state) vs. Virginia Plan (based on population) House of Representatives: GREAT COMPROMISE Based on population Creates a bicameral Senate: (two-house) legislature Equal, two per state THREE-FIFTHS • 3 out of every 5 slaves will count for representation and taxation COMPROMISE • increases representation in Congress for South Other Compromises: • Congress regulates interstate and foreign trade COMMERCIAL • Can tax imports (tariffs) but not exports COMPROMISE • Slave trade continued until 1808 How did the Constitution fix the problems of the Articles of Confederation? ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION CONSTITUTION • States have the most power, national • states have some power, national government government has little has most • No President or executive to carry out
    [Show full text]
  • On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
    No. 20-331 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES IN RE DONALD J. TRUMP On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Motion for Leave to File Brief and Brief for Scholar Seth Barrett Tillman and the Judicial Education Project as Amici Curiae Supporting Petitioner ROBERT W. RAY JOSH BLACKMAN Counsel of Record 1303 San Jacinto Street Zeichner Ellman & Krause LLP Houston, TX 77002 1211 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Fl. 202-294-9003 New York, New York 10036 [email protected] (212) 826-5321 [email protected] JAN I. BERLAGE CARRIE SEVERINO Gohn Hankey & Berlage LLP Judicial Education Project 201 N. Charles Street, Suite 2101 722 12th St., N.W., 4th Fl. Baltimore, Maryland 21201 Washington, D.C. 20005 (410) 752-1261 (571) 357-3134 [email protected] [email protected] October 14, 2020 Motion for Leave to File Brief as Amici Curiae Supporting Petitioner Amici curiae Scholar Seth Barrett Tillman and the Judicial Education Project respectfully move for leave to file a brief explaining why this Court should grant certiorari to review the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Notice of intent to file this brief was provided to Respondents on October 6, 2020 with less than ten days’ notice. Respondents granted consent that same day. Notice of intent to file this brief was provided to Petitioner on October 8, 2020, six days before the filing deadline. The Petitioner did not respond to Amici’s request for consent. These requests were untimely under Supreme Court Rule 37(a)(2).
    [Show full text]
  • American Organic Law and Government. Form #11.217
    American Organic Law By: Freddy Freeman American Organic Law 1 of 247 Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form #11.217, Rev. 12/12/2017 EXHIBIT:___________ Revisions Notes Updates to this release include the following: 1) Added a new section titled “From Colonies to Sovereign States.” 2) Improved the analysis on Declaration of Independence, which now covers the last half of the document. 3) Improved the section titled “Citizens Under the Articles of Confederation” 4) Improved the section titled “Art. I:8:17 – Grant of Power to Exercise Exclusive Legislation.” This new and improved write-up presents proof that the States of the United States Union were created under Article I Section 8 Clause 17 and consist exclusively of territory owned by the United States of America. 5) Improved the section titled “Citizenship in the United States of America Confederacy.” 6) Added the section titled “Constitution versus Statutory citizens of the United States.” 7) Rewrote and renamed the section titled “Erroneous Interpretations of the 14th Amendment Citizens of the United States.” This updated section proves why it is erroneous to interpret the 14th Amendment “citizens of the United States” as being a citizenry which in not domiciled on federal land. 8) Added a new section titled “the States, State Constitutions, and State Governments.” This new section includes a detailed analysis of the 1849 Constitution of the State of California. Much of this analysis applies to all of the State Constitutions. American Organic Law 3 of 247 Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form #11.217, Rev.
    [Show full text]
  • How Bad Were the Official Records of the Federal Convention?
    How Bad Were the Official Records of the Federal Convention? Mary Sarah Bilder* ABSTRACT The official records of the ConstitutionalConvention of 1787 have been neglected and dismissed by scholars for the last century, largely to due to Max Farrand'scriticisms of both the records and the man responsible for keeping them-Secretary of the Convention William Jackson. This Article disagrees with Farrand'sconclusion that the Convention records were bad, and aims to resurrect the records and Jackson's reputation. The Article suggests that the endurance of Farrand'scritique arises in part from misinterpretationsof cer- tain proceduralcomponents of the Convention and failure to appreciate the significance of others, understandable consideringthe inaccessibility of the of- ficial records. The Article also describes the story of the records after the Con- vention but before they were published, including the physical limbo of the records in the aftermath of the Convention and the eventual deposit of the records in March 1796 amidst the rapid development of disagreements over constitutional interpretation. Finally, the Article offers a few cautionary re- flections about the lessons to be drawn from the official records. Particularly, it recommends using caution with Max Farrand's records, paying increased attention to the procedural context of the Convention, and recognizing that Constitutionalinterpretation postdated the Constitution. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ................................................... 1621 A NOTE ON THE RECORDS .....................................
    [Show full text]
  • Unit 3 the FEDERALIST ERA
    Unit 3 THE FEDERALIST ERA CHAPTER 1 THE NEW NATION ..........................................................................................................................1 CHAPTER 2 HAMILTON AND JEFFERSON— THE MEN AND THEIR PHILOSOPHIES .....................6 CHAPTER 3 PAYING THE NATIONAL DEBT ................................................................................................12 CHAPTER 4 ..............................................................................................................................................................16 HAMILTON, JEFFERSON, AND THE FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF THE UNITED STATES.............16 CHAPTER 5 THE WHISKEY REBELLION ........................................................................................................20 CHAPTER 6 NEUTRALITY AND THE JAY TREATY .....................................................................................24 CHAPTER 7 THE SEDITION ACT AND THE VIRGINIA AND KENTUCKY RESOLUTIONS ...........28 CHAPTER 8 THE ELECTION OF 1800................................................................................................................34 CHAPTER 9 JEFFERSONIANS IN OFFICE.......................................................................................................38 by Thomas Ladenburg, copyright, 1974, 1998, 2001, 2007 100 Brantwood Road, Arlington, MA 02476 781-646-4577 [email protected] Page 1 Chapter 1 The New Nation A Search for Answers hile the Founding Fathers at the Constitutional Convention debated what powers should be
    [Show full text]
  • Union Calendar No. 502
    1 Union Calendar No. 502 107TH CONGRESS "!REPORT 2d Session HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 107–801 REPORT ON THE LEGISLATIVE AND OVERSIGHT ACTIVITIES OF THE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS DURING THE 107TH CONGRESS JANUARY 2, 2003.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union and ordered to be printed U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 19–006 WASHINGTON : 2003 COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS BILL THOMAS, California, Chairman PHILIP M. CRANE, Illinois CHARLES B. RANGEL, New York E. CLAY SHAW, JR., Florida FORTNEY PETE STARK, California NANCY L. JOHNSON, Connecticut ROBERT T. MATSUI, California AMO HOUGHTON, New York WILLIAM J. COYNE, Pennsylvania WALLY HERGER, California SANDER M. LEVIN, Michigan JIM MCCRERY, Louisiana BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland DAVE CAMP, Michigan JIM MCDERMOTT, Washington JIM RAMSTAD, Minnesota GERALD D. KLECZKA, Wisconsin JIM NUSSLE, Iowa JOHN LEWIS, Georgia SAM JOHNSON, Texas RICHARD E. NEAL, Massachusetts JENNIFER DUNN, Washington MICHAEL R. MCNULTY, New York MAC COLLINS, Georgia WILLIAM J. JEFFERSON, Louisiana ROB PORTMAN, Ohio JOHN S. TANNER, Tennessee PHIL ENGLISH, Pennsylvania XAVIER BECERRA, California WES WATKINS, Oklahoma KAREN L. THURMAN, Florida J.D. HAYWORTH, Arizona LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas JERRY WELLER, Illinois EARL POMEROY, North Dakota KENNY C. HULSHOF, Missouri SCOTT MCINNIS, Colorado RON LEWIS, Kentucky MARK FOLEY, Florida KEVIN BRADY, Texas PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin (II) LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS, Washington, DC, January 2, 2003. Hon. JEFF TRANDAHL, Office of the Clerk, House of Representatives, The Capitol, Washington, DC. DEAR MR. TRANDAHL: I am herewith transmitting, pursuant to House Rule XI, clause 1(d), the report of the Committee on Ways and Means on its legislative and oversight activities during the 107th Congress.
    [Show full text]
  • Social Life in the Early Republic: a Machine-Readable Transcription
    Library of Congress Social life in the early republic vii PREFACE peared to them, or recall the quaint figures of Mrs. Alexander Hamilton and Mrs. Madison in old age, or the younger faces of Cora Livingston, Adèle Cutts, Mrs. Gardiner G. Howland, and Madame de Potestad. To those who have aided her with personal recollections or valuable family papers and letters the author makes grateful acknowledgment, her thanks being especially due to Mrs. Samuel Phillips Lee, Mrs. Beverly Kennon, Mrs. M. E. Donelson Wilcox, Miss Virginia Mason, Mr. James Nourse and the Misses Nourse of the Highlands, to Mrs. Robert K. Stone, Miss Fanny Lee Jones, Mrs. Semple, Mrs. Julia F. Snow, Mr. J. Henley Smith, Mrs. Thompson H. Alexander, Miss Rosa Mordecai, Mrs. Harriot Stoddert Turner, Miss Caroline Miller, Mrs. T. Skipwith Coles, Dr. James Dudley Morgan, and Mr. Charles Washington Coleman. A. H. W. Philadelphia, October, 1902. ix CONTENTS Chapter Page I— A Social Evolution 13 II— A Predestined Capital 42 Social life in the early republic http://www.loc.gov/resource/lhbcb.29033 Library of Congress III— Homes and Hostelries 58 IV— County Families 78 V— Jeffersonian Simplicity 102 VI— A Queen of Hearts 131 VII— The Bladensburg Races 161 VII— Peace and Plenty 179 IX— Classics and Cotillions 208 X— A Ladies' Battle 236 XI— Through Several Administrations 267 XII— Mid-Century Gayeties 296 xi ILLUSTRATIONS Page Mrs. Richard Gittings, of Baltimore (Polly Sterett) Frontispiece From portrait by Charles Willson Peale, owned by her great-grandson, Mr. D. Sterett Gittings, of Baltimore. Mrs. Gittings eyes are dark brown, the hair dark brown, with lighter shades through it; the gown of delicate pink, the sleeves caught up with pearls, the sash of a gray shade.
    [Show full text]
  • Union Calendar No. 607
    1 Union Calendar No. 607 110TH CONGRESS " ! REPORT 2d Session HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 110–934 REPORT ON THE LEGISLATIVE AND OVERSIGHT ACTIVITIES OF THE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS DURING THE 110TH CONGRESS JANUARY 2, 2009.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union and ordered to be printed U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 79–006 WASHINGTON : 2009 VerDate Nov 24 2008 22:51 Jan 06, 2009 Jkt 079006 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4012 Sfmt 4012 E:\HR\OC\HR934.XXX HR934 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with HEARING E:\Seals\Congress.#13 COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS CHARLES B. RANGEL, New York, Chairman FORTNEY PETE STARK, California JIM MCCRERY, Louisiana SANDER M. LEVIN, Michigan WALLY HERGER, California JIM MCDERMOTT, Washington DAVE CAMP, Michigan JOHN LEWIS, Georgia JIM RAMSTAD, Minnesota RICHARD E. NEAL, Massachusetts SAM JOHNSON, Texas MICHAEL R. MCNULTY, New York PHIL ENGLISH, Pennsylvania JOHN S. TANNER, Tennessee JERRY WELLER, Illinois XAVIER BECERRA, California KENNY C. HULSHOF, Missouri LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas RON LEWIS, Kentucky EARL POMEROY, North Dakota KEVIN BRADY, Texas STEPHANIE TUBBS JONES, Ohio THOMAS M. REYNOLDS, New York MIKE THOMPSON, California PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut ERIC CANTOR, Virginia RAHM EMANUEL, Illinois JOHN LINDER, Georgia EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon DEVIN NUNES, California RON KIND, Wisconsin PAT TIBERI, Ohio BILL PASCRELL, JR., New Jersey JON PORTER, Nevada SHELLY BERKLEY, Nevada JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland KENDRICK MEEK, Florida ALLYSON Y. SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama (II) VerDate Nov 24 2008 13:20 Jan 06, 2009 Jkt 079006 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 5904 Sfmt 5904 E:\HR\OC\HR934.XXX HR934 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with HEARING LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Newdow V. Congress February 2013 Original Complaint Page Iii CLAIM 6
    Michael Newdow Pro hac vice (pending) USDC-SDNY Bar PO Box 233345 Sacramento, CA 95823 (916) 273-3798 [email protected] Edwin M. Reiskind, Jr. Friend & Reiskind PLLC 100 William Street, #1220 New York, NY 10038 (212) 587-1960 (212) 587-1957 (Fax) [email protected] IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Civil Action No. ORIGINAL COMPLAINT ROSALYN NEWDOW; KENNETH BRONSTEIN; BENJAMIN DREIDEL; NEIL GRAHAM; JULIE WOODWARD; JAN AND PAT DOE; DOE-CHILD1 AND DOE-CHILD2; ALEX AND DREW ROE; ROE-CHILD1, ROE-CHILD2, AND ROE-CHILD3; VAL AND JADE COE; COE-CHILD1 AND COE-CHILD2; NEW YORK CITY ATHEISTS; FREEDOM FROM RELIGION FOUNDATION; Plaintiffs, v. THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; TIMOTHY F. GEITHNER, SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY; RICHARD A. PETERSON, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, UNITED STATES MINT; LARRY R. FELIX, DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF ENGRAVING AND PRINTING; Defendants. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Newdow v. The Congress of the United States Original Complaint TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ........................................................................................................ v JURISDICTION AND VENUE ................................................................................................... 1 PARTIES ........................................................................................................................................ 2 A. PLAINTIFFS ........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 19-1434 United States V. Arthrex, Inc. (06/21/2021)
    (Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2020 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus UNITED STATES v. ARTHREX, INC. ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT No. 19–1434. Argued March 1, 2021—Decided June 21, 2021* The question in these cases is whether the authority of Administrative Patent Judges (APJs) to issue decisions on behalf of the Executive Branch is consistent with the Appointments Clause of the Constitu- tion. APJs conduct adversarial proceedings for challenging the valid- ity of an existing patent before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). During such proceedings, the PTAB sits in panels of at least three of its members, who are predominantly APJs. 35 U. S. C. §§6(a), (c). The Secretary of Commerce appoints all members of the PTAB— including 200-plus APJs—except for the Director, who is nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. §§3(b)(1), (b)(2)(A), 6(a). After Smith & Nephew, Inc., and ArthroCare Corp. (collectively, Smith & Nephew) petitioned for inter partes review of a patent secured by Arthrex, Inc., three APJs concluded that the patent was invalid. On appeal to the Federal Circuit, Arthrex claimed that the structure of the PTAB violated the Appointments Clause, which specifies how the President may appoint officers to assist in carrying out his responsi- bilities.
    [Show full text]
  • The Signers of the U.S. Constitution
    CONSTITUTIONFACTS.COM The U.S Constitution & Amendments: About the Signers (Continued) The Signers of the U.S. Constitution On September 17, 1787, the Constitutional Convention came to a close in the Assembly Room of Independence Hall in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. There were seventy individuals chosen to attend the meetings with the initial purpose of amending the Articles of Confederation. Rhode Island opted to not send any delegates. Fifty-five men attended most of the meetings, there were never more than forty-six present at any one time, and ultimately only thirty-nine delegates actually signed the Constitution. (William Jackson, who was the secretary of the convention, but not a delegate, also signed the Constitution. John Delaware was absent but had another delegate sign for him.) While offering incredible contributions, George Mason of Virginia, Edmund Randolph of Virginia, and Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts refused to sign the final document because of basic philosophical differences. Mainly, they were fearful of an all-powerful government and wanted a bill of rights added to protect the rights of the people. The following is a list of those individuals who signed the Constitution along with a brief bit of information concerning what happened to each person after 1787. Many of those who signed the Constitution went on to serve more years in public service under the new form of government. The states are listed in alphabetical order followed by each state’s signers. Connecticut William S. Johnson (1727-1819)—He became the president of Columbia College (formerly known as King’s College), and was then appointed as a United States Senator in 1789.
    [Show full text]