Freytag v. Commissioner
Freytag v. Commissioner | |
---|---|
Holding | |
Special trial judges of the United States Tax Court are inferior officers of the United States and are thus subject to the Appointments Clause. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Blackmun, joined by Rehnquist, White, Marshall, Stevens; Scalia, O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter (except part IV) |
Concurrence | Scalia (in part), joined by O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter |
Laws applied | |
U.S. Const. art. II |
Freytag v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 501 U.S. 868 (1991), is a United States federal court case in which the Supreme Court of the United States decided the characteristics of inferior officers of the United States for the purposes of the Appointments Clause.[1]
The case concerned the appointment method of special trial judges of the United States Tax Court. The Court was unanimous in its conclusion that special trial judges were inferior officers under the Appointments Clause, rather than mere employees, because of the characteristics of their office and that their appointment was constitutional. Positions constitute inferior officers when the position (1) is established by law and (2) exercises significant authority (3) involving significant discretion.
The division between the majority, led by Justice
Facts
Under the
Thomas Freytag and several other defendants were charged by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue with using a tax shelter scheme to avoid paying approximately $1.5 billion in taxes. The defendants petitioned to the Tax Court to review the Commissioner's determination. Their case was assigned by the Chief Judge of the Tax Court to a special trial judge with the consent of the defendants. The special trial judge upheld the Commissioner's decision and the Chief Judge subsequently adopted the opinion as that of the Tax Court itself.
The defendants appeals the decision to the
The Fifth Circuit rejected the defendant's arguments and affirmed the Tax Court's decision, ruling the statute authorized the appointment.[2] Further, the defendants had waived any constitutional challenge to the appointment by consent to the assignment.
Opinion of the Court
Blackmun Majority
Justice Harry Blackmun determined the appointment of the special trial judge did not violate the Appointments Clause. Under the clause, Congress may invest the power to appoint inferior officers of the United States in the President, Heads of Departments, or the Courts of Law. As a preliminary issue, the Court was forced to determine if the special trial judges were "inferior officers" who are subject to the Clause as the defendants argued or if they were merely "lessor functionary", that is, employees of the federal government, who are not as the Commissioner argued. On this point, Blackmun agreed with the defendants, noting the special trial judges did far more than aid the regular judges of the Tax Court, instead exercising "significant authority" under the law. That the decisions of the special trial judge were not final until adopted by the Chief Judge did not reduce their officer status. The office of special trial judge was established by law, with their duties also specified by law. Further, the special trial judges performed more than mere ministerial tasks, instead exercising "significant discretion" in the performance of their duties.
While agreeing with the defendants that the special trial judge was an officer of the United States who must be appointed in conformity with the Clause's requirements, Blackmun rejected the notation that their appointment by the Chief Judge of the Tax Court did not comply with the Clause. Reviewing the historical rationale behind the Appointments Clause, Blackmun noted the Clause's principal purpose was to limit who could exercise the power to appoint federal officers, thereby ensuring those who wielded the power were accountable to the American people. While the Chief Judge was not a head of a department – which the Court had previously limited only to members of the
Scalia Concurrence
Aftermath
This section is empty. You can help by adding to it. (July 2021) |
References
External links
- Text of Freytag v. Commissioner, 501 U.S. 868 (1991) is available from: Google Scholar Justia Library of Congress Oyez (oral argument audio)