The Strength of a Giant: The Administrative State and the United States Patent & Trademark Office

• Author: Braden Anderson
• Position: J.D. Candidate, Georgetown University Law Center
• Pages: 221-240

NOTES

The Strength of a Giant: The Administrative State

and the United States Patent & Trademark Office

BRADEN ANDERSON*

ABSTRACT

For Appointments Clause purposes, the Supreme Court historically has

refused to draw a bright line between a “principal officer” and an “inferior of-

ficer.” The vague separation between the officer ranks has caused lower courts

and administrative law scholars to apply inconsistent standards in determining

whether an officer is a principal or inferior. Recently, however, United States v.

Arthrex adopted a bright line rule for distinguishing between officers that need

to go through the formal constitutional process for appointment and officers

that do not. This Essay argues that the Arthrex decision unduly burdens both

the Senate and the Executive by imposing a rigid, unforgiving standard for

addressing the principal-inferior officer distinction which implicitly overruled

binding precedent. An examination of the Appointments Clause through a textu-

alist, a purposivist, and an originalist lens suggests that the Supreme Court’s

historic jurisprudence in the area adequately addresses the accountability,

transparency, and authority concerns inherent in the appointments procedures.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222

I. BOTH TEXTUALIST AND PURPOSIVIST INTERPRETATIONS OF THE

APPOINTMENTS CLAUSE D D J

DEFERENCE TO CONGRESS

EMAND A EGREE OF UDICIAL

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225

A. The Three Underlying Notions of Administrative Law:

Accountability, Transparency, and Authority. . . . . . . . . . . . . 225

B. The Appointments Clause Creates a Horizontal and Vertical

Separation and Prescribes Appointment Procedures . . . . . . . 227

* J.D. Candidate, Georgetown University Law Center. Thanks to John R. Thomas, Daniel

Hemming, Allegra J. Kaufman, Gregg Anderson, Kem Anderson, and the editors of Georgetown

Journal of Law and Public Policy for helpful and thought-provoking comments and suggestions. Any

remaining errors are, of course, my own. © 2023, Braden Anderson.

221

C. The Purpose and Ratification of the Appointments Clause

Highlight the Tension Between Accountability and Efficiency

Concerns. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228

D. Principal–Inferior Officer Questions Warrant (Some) Judicial

Deference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230

II. THE PRINCIPAL–INFERIOR OFFICER DOCTRINE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232

A. The Principal–Inferior Officer Distinction: Morrison v.

Olson, Edmond v. United States, and other cases. . . . . . . . . . 232

B. Morrison and Edmond Are Reconcilable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234

III. THE ARTHREX HOLDING PRODUCES AN UNWORKABLE DOCTRINE

AND CONTRADICTS BINDING PRECEDENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235

A. The Arthrex Decision is Inherently Inconsistent, Produces

Absurd Results, and Contradicts Legislative Intent . . . . . . . . 235

B. Arthrex Disregards Binding Precedent to Create a New

Judicial Rule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236

IV. CONCLUSION: THE EFFECTS OF ARTHREX AND A RECOMMENDATION

TO CONGRESS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239

INTRODUCTION

United States v. Arthrex, Inc.

1

reaffirms fears that the Supreme Court doesn’t

always reach the correct result. The decision wrongfully disrupts the carefully

crafted scheme created by the Leahy-Smith American Invents Act (AIA). The

AIA ushered in a new era for the U.S. patent law system. President Obama

described the legislation as “vital to our ongoing efforts to modernize patent

laws,” and claimed that the Act harmonized the U.S. with the rest of the world.

2

Intellectual Property Team at Vedder Price & Smitha B. Uthaman, Summary of the American

Invents Act, NAT’L L. REV. (April 12, 2012), https://www.natlawreview.com/article/summary-america-

invents-act [https://perma.cc/ZQV2-JCCJ].

Notably, Congress transformed the scheme from “first to invent” to “first to file”

to provide greater certainty to patent applicants as well as to create international

uniformity.

3

To realize the lofty goals of Congress, the Act implemented a new

administrative scheme within the United States Patent and Trademark Office

(PTO)

4

—an executive branch agency within the Department of Commerce

1. 141 S. Ct. 1970 (2021).

2.

3. See Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub.L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (codified as amended in

35 U.S.C.).

4. See id. at § 311.

222 THE GEORGETOWN JOURNAL OF LAW & PUBLIC POLICY [Vol. 21:221