Freytag v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 501 U.S. 868 (1991), is a United States federal court case in which the Supreme Court of the United States decided the characteristics of inferior officers of the United States for the purposes of the Appointments Clause.
Attributes | Values |
---|
rdf:type
| |
rdfs:label
| - Freytag v. Commissioner (en)
|
rdfs:comment
| - Freytag v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 501 U.S. 868 (1991), is a United States federal court case in which the Supreme Court of the United States decided the characteristics of inferior officers of the United States for the purposes of the Appointments Clause. (en)
|
foaf:name
| - (en)
- Thomas L. Freytag, et al. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (en)
|
foaf:depiction
| |
dcterms:subject
| |
Wikipage page ID
| |
Wikipage revision ID
| |
Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage
| |
Link from a Wikipage to an external page
| |
sameAs
| |
dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
| |
thumbnail
| |
JoinMajority
| - Rehnquist, White, Marshall, Stevens; Scalia, O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter (en)
|
LawsApplied
| |
oyez
| |
ParallelCitations
| |
Prior
| |
USPage
| |
USVol
| |
ArgueDate
| |
ArgueYear
| |
case
| - Freytag v. Commissioner, (en)
|
DecideDate
| |
DecideYear
| |
fullname
| - Thomas L. Freytag, et al. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (en)
|
Holding
| - Special trial judges of the United States Tax Court are inferior officers of the United States and are thus subject to the Appointments Clause. (en)
|
justia
| |
Litigants
| - Freytag v. Commissioner (en)
|
majority
| |
loc
| |
has abstract
| - Freytag v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 501 U.S. 868 (1991), is a United States federal court case in which the Supreme Court of the United States decided the characteristics of inferior officers of the United States for the purposes of the Appointments Clause. The case concerned the appointment method of special trial judges of the United States Tax Court. The Court was unanimous in its conclusion that special trial judges were inferior officers under the Appointments Clause, rather than mere employees, because of the characteristics of their office and that their appointment was constitutional. Positions constitute inferior officers when the position (1) is established by law and (2) exercises significant authority (3) involving significant discretion. The division between the majority, led by Justice Harry Blackmun, and the concurrence, led by Justice Antonin Scalia, centered on the status of the Tax Court itself. Under the Appointments Clause, inferior officers may only be appointed by the President, Heads of Departments, or the Courts of Law. The majority determined the Tax Court, which exercises power as an Article I court was a "Court of Law" for the purpose of the Appointments Clause and was thus constitutional. The concurrence, however, would have held "Courts of Law" are limited to traditional Article III courts. Instead, the concurrence would have permitted the appointments under the view that the Tax Court is a "Head of a Department". (en)
|
Concurrence
| |
JoinConcurrence
| - O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter (en)
|
prov:wasDerivedFrom
| |
page length (characters) of wiki page
| |
foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
| |
is Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage
of | |
is Wikipage redirect
of | |
is foaf:primaryTopic
of | |