United States v. Arthrex, Inc.
View Official PDFBelow are plain-language sections to help you understand what the Court decided in United States v. Arthrex, Inc. and why it matters. Quotes are taken from the syllabus (the Court’s short summary at the start of the opinion).
Summary
A short, plain-English overview of United States v. Arthrex, Inc..
The Supreme Court addressed the constitutionality of the appointment of Administrative Patent Judges (APJs) under the Appointments Clause. The Court found that the unreviewable authority wielded by APJs during inter partes review is incompatible with their appointment by the Secretary of Commerce. To remedy this, the Court vacated the judgment and remanded the case, allowing the Director to review final PTAB decisions.
Holding
The single most important “bottom line” of what the Court decided in United States v. Arthrex, Inc..
The Court held that the unreviewable authority wielded by APJs is incompatible with their appointment by the Secretary of Commerce to an inferior office.
Constitutional Concepts
These are the Constitution-related themes that appear in United States v. Arthrex, Inc.. Click a concept to see other cases that involve the same idea.
-
Why Appointments and Removals is relevant to United States v. Arthrex, Inc.
The case primarily concerns the constitutionality of the appointment of Administrative Patent Judges (APJs) and whether they are principal or inferior officers under the Appointments Clause.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)The Appointments Clause provides that only the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate, can appoint principal officers.
-
Why Executive Power is relevant to United States v. Arthrex, Inc.
The case involves the scope of executive power and the President's ability to supervise and control executive officers, which is central to the decision.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)The President is `responsible for the actions of the Executive Branch' and `cannot delegate [that] ultimate responsibility or the active obligation to supervise that goes with it.'
-
Why Judicial Review is relevant to United States v. Arthrex, Inc.
The Court's decision involves reviewing and determining the constitutionality of the statutory scheme governing APJs.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)We granted those petitions to consider whether the PTAB's structure is consistent with the Appointments Clause, and the appropriate remedy if it is not.
Key Quotes
Short excerpts from the syllabus in United States v. Arthrex, Inc. that support the summary and concepts above.
The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded.
The unreviewable authority wielded by APJs during inter partes review is incompatible with their appointment by the Secretary of Commerce to an inferior office.
APJs accordingly exercise power that conflicts with the design of the Appointments Clause 'to preserve political accountability.'
