Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Dahle v. Kijakazi
Dahle v. Kijakazi
23-173
KILOLO KIJAKAZI,
ACTING COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Respondent.
__________
Anastasia P. Boden
Counsel of Record
Thomas A. Berry
CATO INSTITUTE
1000 Mass. Ave., N.W.
Washington, DC 20001
(202) 216-1414
[email protected]
QUESTION PRESENTED
The Federal Vacancies Reform Act provides that in
certain circumstances, “the President (and only the
President) may direct” an eligible person to temporar-
ily serve as an acting officer. This amicus brief will fo-
cus on one question presented in this case, which is
whether the president may exercise this power after
leaving office via an order that does not identify any
particular person by name.
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUESTION PRESENTED ........................................... i
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ....................................... iii
INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE ............................. 1
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ..................................... 1
ARGUMENT ................................................................ 3
I. THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT’S
STATUTORY HOLDING WOULD
ALLOW UNLIMITED METHODS OF
ABDICATING PRESIDENTIAL
ACCOUNTABILITY ......................................... 4
II. APPOINTMENTS BY
CONTINGENCY CIRCUMVENT THE
ACCOUNTABILITY MANDATED BY
THE APPOINTMENTS CLAUSE .................... 7
CONCLUSION .......................................................... 11
iii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page(s)
Cases
Free Enter. Fund v. PCAOB, 561 U.S. 477
(2010) ...................................................................... 10
Freytag v. Comm’r, 501 U.S. 868 (1991) ............. 3, 4, 6
Statutes
5 U.S.C. § 3345............................................................. 2
Other Authorities
Hanah Metchis Volokh, The Two
Appointments Clauses: Statutory
Qualifications for Federal Officers, 10 U.
Pa. J. Const. L. 745 (2008) ....................................... 9
James Wilson, Government: Lectures on Law
(1791), in 4 The Founder’ Constitution 110
(Philip B. Kurland & Ralph Lerner eds.,
1987) ....................................................................... 10
Jennifer L. Mascott, “Officers” in the Supreme
Court: Lucia v. SEC, 2017–2018 Cato Sup.
Ct. Rev. 305 (2018) ................................................... 3
Jennifer L. Mascott, Who Are “Officers of the
United States”?, 70 Stan. L. Rev. 443 (2018) .......... 7
Records of the Federal Convention of 1787
(M. Farrand rev. 1966) ............................... 3, 8, 9, 10
The Federalist No. 76 (Alexander Hamilton)
(Clinton Rossiter ed., 1961) ..................................... 9
The Federalist No. 77 (Alexander Hamilton)
(Clinton Rossiter ed., 1961) ..................................... 9
iv
Regulations
Providing an Order of Succession Within the
Social Security Administration, 81 Fed.
Reg. 96,337 (Dec. 30, 2016) ...................................... 1
Constitutional Provisions
U.S. Const. Art. II, § 2 ................................................. 3
1
ARGUMENT
The Constitution requires, as a default rule, that
“Officers of the United States” must be nominated by
the president and confirmed by the Senate. U.S. Const.
Art. II, § 2, cl. 2. The Constitution allows only one po-
tential exception to this default rule: If an officer is
merely an “inferior officer,” Congress may waive Sen-
ate consent. Id. But even if an officer is inferior, Con-
gress is limited in its choice of who may appoint that
officer. “[T]he Constitution limits congressional discre-
tion to vest power to appoint ‘inferior Officers’ to three
sources: ‘the President alone,’ ‘the Heads of Depart-
ments,’ and ‘the Courts of Law.’” Freytag v. Comm’r,
501 U.S. 868, 878 (1991) (quoting U.S. Const. Art. II,
§ 2, cl. 2). To exempt an inferior officer from Senate
consent, Congress must “by Law vest” that inferior of-
ficer’s “Appointment” in one of these three options.
“This Article II limitation on the number of actors
authorized to make final decisions in selecting officers
helps to ensure that the public knows the identity of
the official who bears ultimate responsibility for each
officer appointment.” Jennifer L. Mascott, “Officers” in
the Supreme Court: Lucia v. SEC, 2017–2018 Cato
Sup. Ct. Rev. 305, 315 (2018). Even if Congress wished
to, it could not vest the power to appoint an officer in
some lower-ranking official. As this Court has ob-
served, “The Constitutional Convention rejected
[James] Madison’s complaint that the Appointments
Clause did ‘not go far enough if it be necessary at all’:
Madison argued that ‘Superior Officers below Heads of
Departments ought in some cases to have the appoint-
ment of the lesser offices.’” Freytag, 501 U.S. at 884
(quoting 2 Records of the Federal Convention of 1787,
pp. 627–628 (M. Farrand rev. 1966) [hereinafter
4