Did the Ninth Circuit's disposition of Petitioners' claim under Article II's Appointments Clause — namely, that Whitaker's unconstitutional appointment tainted the government's having secured the third superseding indictment in Petitioners' underlying case — contravene Eaton's longstanding rule, particularly considering that the government has never represented that Whitaker did not directly or indirectly impact the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of California's decision to seek that indictment in November 2018?

Did the Ninth Circuit's disposition of Petitioners' claim under Article II's Appointments Clause contravene Eaton's longstanding rule?