Skip to playerSkip to main contentSkip to footer
  • 5 months ago
During the oral arguments for Kennedy v. Braidwood Management, Inc., Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor questioned an attorney about the past rulings made in the given case.
Transcript
00:00the issue was so open and shut. Why do you think the Fifth Circuit didn't reach it? I saw that this
00:05was a huge part of the briefing before the Fifth Circuit. It was. It seems to me that
00:12it wasn't merely an assumption, it was a conclusion. In their whole reasoning, the
00:19conclusion was... Well, if I can defend the Court of Appeals for a moment, Justice Sotomayor. They
00:25did not need to reach that question because they concluded, number one, the task force members are
00:29principal officers. So there's no need to decide whether Congress vested the appointment authority
00:35and the secretary. You only need to reach that question if you think they're inferior officers,
00:39because even inferior officers still need to be appointed by the President and the Senate,
00:43unless Congress has affirmatively opted out of the default rule. But if you think they're
00:46principal officers, you don't need to reach that question at all. The second reason I think the
00:49Court of Appeals refused a rule on it was because they rejected the government's proposed severance
00:54remedy. And the court will also need to address this point if it wants to sever Section 299B-4A.
01:00because the severance remedy proposed by the government is premised on the idea that the
01:04secretary has constitutional authority vested by Congress to appoint the task force. If the
01:09secretary doesn't have that power because Congress hasn't vested the power in the secretary,
01:13then the government's severance remedy does not work because the inferior officers would still have
01:17to be appointed by the President and the Senate, even if they're considered inferior officers.
Be the first to comment
Add your comment

Recommended