Whether administrative patent judges are 'principal' or 'inferior' Officers of the United States within the meaning of the Appointments Clause

QUESTION PRESENTED This Court has consistently held that first-line administrative adjudicators are Officers of the United States under the Appointments Clause. See Lucia v. SEC, 138 S. Ct. 2044, 2053 (2018); Freytag v. Comm’r, 501 U.S. 868, 881-82 (1991). With equal consistency, this Court has held that such adjudicators are “inferior” Officers, whose appointments may be vested in a Head of Department, rather than “principal” Officers, who must be nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Edmond v. United States, 520 U.S. 651, 666 (1997). In this case, however, the Federal Circuit ruled that administrative patent judges of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board—whose functions are analogous to the adjudicators in Edmond, Freytag, and Lucia—are “principal” Officers whose statutory mode of appointment is unconstitutional. The question presented by this petition is: Whether administrative patent judges are “principal” or “inferior” Officers of the United States within the meaning of the Appointments Clause.