Please update your browser

You're using a version of Internet Explorer that isn't supported by Questia.
To get a better experience, go to one of these sites and get the latest
version of your preferred browser:

Developing the Duffy Defect: Identifying Which Government Workers Are Constitutionally Required to Be Appointed

By Lindstedt, Stacy M. | Missouri Law Review, Fall 2011 | Go to article overview

Developing the Duffy Defect: Identifying Which Government Workers Are Constitutionally Required to Be Appointed


Lindstedt, Stacy M., Missouri Law Review


I. Introduction

In 2007, a brief article by Professor John Duffy questioned the constitutionality of the appointment method for Administrative Patent Judges. (1) Duffy argued that Administrative Patent Judges were at least inferior officers under the Appointments Clause due to the substantial power they held--and with that contention, questioned the validity of eight years of Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences determinations. (2) The article made such an impact that Congress enacted a statutory patch to correct the issue. (3) But the spark didn't die there--a series of articles followed "The Duffy Defect," (4) questioning the applicability of the Appointments Clause to a range of government actors, from Bankruptcy Judges to the Pay Czar. (5) The impact of Duffy's article reached courtrooms as well, prompting an Appointments Clause challenge in Tucker v. Commissioner (6) In the United States Tax Court, Tucker argued that Appeals Officers or their managers within the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) are inferior officers of the United States because they provide statutorily required Collection Due Process (CDP) hearings. (7) In 2010, the IRS Office of Appeals received over 49,000 CDP hearing requests to determine whether it would move forward with proposed liens or levies on delinquent taxes, and that number increases each year. (8) A determination that CDP conductors are officers could halt compelled tax collection until appropriate personnel are appointed. Even more concerning, such a holding could compel the same result for similarly situated personnel in other federal agencies. A prime example is the Social Security Administration, which received 408,314 requests for benefit-determination hearings in the six months ending in March 2011. (9)

The Appointments Clause requires that officers of the United States be appointed by one of its specified methods. Principal officers must be appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. (10) With statutory permission, inferior officers may be appointed directly by the President alone, the Courts of Law, or Heads of Departments. (11) But the Constitution provides little guidance on the characteristics that define an officer. In one of the most thorough opinions to address the distinction between constitutional officers and mere employees, the Tax Court rejected Tucker's arguments, ruling that neither Appeals Officers nor their managers are officers in the constitutional sense and therefore need not be appointed. (12) The court first found the position of Appeals Officer was not "established by Law." (13) The court then found that IRS agents were mere employees because their decisions were not the "last word" of the agency. (14) The court further determined that the statutes establishing CDP hearings assigned those duties to the entire Office of Appeals, rather than to the named position of Appeals Officer, thus precluding the application of the Appointments Clause. (15) The Tax Court concluded that finding Appeals Officers to be constitutional officers would be an inappropriate singling out, because a myriad of other administrative government actors who perform similar duties were not appointed. (16) This Article concludes that, in so holding, the Tax Court provides Congress with a blueprint on how to circumvent the Appointments Clause. (17)

The Tax Court decision is on appeal to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. (18) But even if Tucker settles his appellate case, the spark ignited by Duffy's article suggests that this issue will resurface, in and out of the tax context, and in every circuit. This Article goes beyond Duffy's brief analysis to explore the officer-versus-employee distinction that Tucker highlighted and that is bound to become a common challenge to agency action. Duffy looked at the question for patent judges, but this Article sets forth a broader framework that can be applied to any government personnel.

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

Developing the Duffy Defect: Identifying Which Government Workers Are Constitutionally Required to Be Appointed
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.