What's the point of Appointments Clauses challenges?

In every case, the Court refuses to grant any relief that would actually redress the Plaintiffs' injuries.

Over the past decade, the Supreme Court has decided several Appointments Clause cases. In each dispute, the plaintiffs were aggrieved by some agency action. In the short term, the plaintiffs hoped that their suit would nullify that agency action, and allow them to recoup money or marketshare. But optimistically, the plaintiffs hoped to land the kill-shot: because the structure of the agency is unconstitutional, the entire agency is unconstitutional. This strategy has never worked. In each case, the Court found a violation of the separation of powers, but issued a very narrow remedy.

In Free Enterprise Fund, the Court severed the tenure protections. In Seila Law, the Court severed the tenure protections. (And President Biden promptly fired Trump's holdover CPFB director). In Arthrex, the Court made the decisions of the patent judges subject to review by the Senate-confirmed Director. And in Collins, the Court… Well, I don't know exactly what the Court actually did. I am still digesting that remedial holding. But the shareholders will likely never see a penny. (And President Biden promptly fired Trump's holdover director.)

What's the point of these Appointments Clause challenges. In each case, the Court refuses to grant any meaningful relief. Moreover, the Court's conservatives are so helplessly fractured on these cases. Ultimately, nothing of merit happens. All of these victories are symbolic.

Justice Gorsuch alluded to the problem:

The only lesson I can divine is that the Court's opinion today is a product of its unique context—a retreat prompted by the prospect that affording a more traditional remedy here could mean unwinding or disgorging hundreds of millions of dollars that have already changed hands. Ante, at 32–33. The Court may blanch at authorizing such relief today, but nothing it says undoes our prior guidance authorizing more meaningful relief in other situations.

The Court is unwilling to actually take actions that changes the status quo. So we are left with long, messy decisions with no real-world impact. Do we really need to waste our time again to decide the fate of the Civilian and Postal Boards of Contract Appeals?

Comments

[Martinned]

It's all part of the Great War on the Administrative State. Just like the War on Drugs and the War on the War on Christmas, actual tangible results aren't the point. It's the thought that counts.

[John F. Carr]

But this time Roberts won't pull the football away.

[tkamenick]

So salty, not getting everything you want. It's still corrected going forward, don't act like obeying the Constitution doesn't mean anything.

[Aladdin's Carpet]

Well, they shouldn't be surprised. If your going to make an argument that the structure of the agency is the problem, well, the court will fix that structural problem! Problem solved! It isnt their fault the plantiffs are being somewhat dishonest here ... the structure isnt the problem, they were harassed by the federal government and would like the government to stop.

In which case, you might be able to get them to stop, but good luck getting your money back or anything like that. And in many cases its the conservative justices own decisions with soverign immunity and standing that makes this so difficult.

In any event, the complaint isn't the actual problem. The complaint is addressed.

Now, there are takings claims made in the lower courts in Collins or non delegation complaints in other cases ... those might work. Because they are more direct. By resolving the issue, you also resolve what the plantiffs are actually mad about.

But yes, a full victory was never likely with this sort of thing.

[Aladdin's Carpet]

The people in Selia Law don't actually care if the director is fireable or not. They are just using that to say, unconstitutional structure, therefore I dont have to follow this rule.

From a formalist perspective, it's a decent argument. But the court has always been more pragmatist ... and will reject it because it doesn't seem like a very honest argument.

[Dilan Esper]

This is reductive, but the basic way I would put it is that at the end of the day, the Court is not going to invalidate the Federal Reserve.

Courts can't do stuff like that. If you don't like it, you need to convince Congress to restructure these agencies. But courts can't just f___ up the country to make a strange point about structure.