Freytag v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
501 U.S. 868 (1991)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The United States Tax Court, an Article I legislative court, qualifies as a "Court of Law" for the purposes of the Appointments Clause of Article II. Therefore, Congress may constitutionally vest the Chief Judge of the Tax Court with the authority to appoint inferior officers, such as special trial judges.
Facts:
- Several petitioners participated in a tax shelter scheme, which led to them deducting approximately $1.5 billion in alleged losses on their federal income tax returns.
- The Commissioner of Internal Revenue determined these deductions were improper and issued notices of federal income tax deficiencies against the petitioners.
- The petitioners sought review of these deficiency determinations in the United States Tax Court.
- During the trial, the assigned Tax Court Judge, Richard C. Wilbur, became ill.
- The Chief Judge of the Tax Court assigned Special Trial Judge Carleton D. Powell to preside over the trial as an evidentiary referee.
- After Judge Wilbur's subsequent retirement, the Chief Judge reassigned the cases to Judge Powell for the preparation of written findings and an opinion, an action to which the petitioners consented.
Procedural Posture:
- The petitioners challenged the tax deficiency determinations by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in the U.S. Tax Court.
- A Special Trial Judge presided over the trial, prepared findings, and issued a proposed opinion concluding the tax shelter was a sham.
- The Chief Judge of the Tax Court adopted the Special Trial Judge's opinion as the decision of the Tax Court.
- Petitioners, as appellants, appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, raising for the first time the claim that the assignment of the case to a Special Trial Judge violated the Appointments Clause.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the Tax Court's decision, ruling that petitioners had waived their constitutional challenge by consenting to the trial proceeding.
- The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the authority granted by Congress to the Chief Judge of the United States Tax Court to appoint special trial judges violate the Appointments Clause of Article II of the Constitution?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Blackmun
No. The authority granted to the Chief Judge of the Tax Court to appoint special trial judges does not violate the Appointments Clause. Special trial judges are "inferior Officers" whose appointment must comply with Article II. The Appointments Clause allows Congress to vest the appointment of such officers in "the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments." The Tax Court is not a "Department," as that term refers to Cabinet-level executive divisions, not every component of the Executive Branch. However, the Tax Court is a "Court of Law." The term "Courts of Law" is not limited to Article III courts. Because the Tax Court exercises judicial power to the exclusion of any other function, is independent of the Executive and Legislative branches, and its decisions are appealable to Article III courts in the same manner as district court decisions, it qualifies as a Court of Law capable of receiving the appointment power from Congress.
Concurring - Justice Scalia
No. The appointment is valid, but not for the reasons stated by the majority. First, the Court should not have reached the constitutional question because petitioners forfeited their claim by consenting to the assignment at trial and only raising the objection on appeal after receiving an unfavorable outcome. Second, on the merits, the Tax Court is not a "Court of Law" because that constitutional term refers exclusively to Article III courts, which possess structural protections like life tenure and salary protection that ensure their independence from political influence. Rather, the appointment is valid because the Tax Court, as a freestanding entity within the Executive Branch, qualifies as a "Departmen[t]" and its Chief Judge serves as the "Hea[d]" of that department, one of the three constitutionally permissible repositories for the appointment of inferior officers.
Analysis:
This decision is significant for clarifying the constitutional status of Article I legislative courts within the separation of powers framework. By defining the Tax Court as a "Court of Law" for Appointments Clause purposes, the Court broadened the potential repositories of appointment power beyond the traditional Article III judiciary and Executive departments. This holding validates the appointment structures in similar Article I courts, providing Congress greater flexibility in their design. However, as Justice Scalia's concurrence forcefully argues, this interpretation raises questions about diluting the structural protections of independence that the Appointments Clause was designed to ensure.
Unlock the full brief for Freytag v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue