Thomas Freytag, et al. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
The Supreme Court of the United States decided the characteristics of inferior officers of the United States for the purposes of the Appointments Clause.
501 U.S. 868 · No. 90-762 · 1990 term · Rehnquist Court
Decided Jun 27, 1991 · argued Apr 23, 1991
Miscellaneous · Miscellaneous
Majority opinion: Harry Blackmun
The voteMajority
9–09 in the majority, 0 in dissent
No dissent (9–0)
Affirmed. Thomas Freytag, et al. lost.
What this ruling means
Affirmed: the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, so it stands (sometimes with changes the Court made to it).
Thomas Freytag, et al. was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Lost” means the Court did not give that side the result it asked for.
From the Supreme Court Database. A justice who agreed with the result but not the reasoning counts in the majority.
Summary
The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.
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".
Data notes
The text is Wikipedia’s (CC BY-SA 4.0), matched to the case by its citation, docket number or name and year, and is not checked against the opinion. The site keeps the article’s opening section, ending on its last full sentence. The one-sentence summary under the title is the Decisions list’s: Wikipedia’s own ruling sentence, or, tagged “AI-written”, one Claude wrote from this opening.
How the justices voted
Each justice who took part, placed by their Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 1990 term. Filled: the 9 in the majority. Hollow: the 0 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.
Majority(9)
Harry BlackmunWrote the majority opinion
Antonin ScaliaWrote a concurrence
Thurgood MarshallJoined the majority
John StevensJoined the majority
Byron WhiteJoined the majority
David SouterJoined the majority
Sandra O'ConnorJoined the majority
Anthony KennedyJoined the majority
William RehnquistJoined the majority
Dissent(0)
- None.
Data notes
Each justice’s vote and what they wrote are from the justice-centered file of the Supreme Court Database. “Wrote a concurrence” means the justice sided with the majority and wrote separately; a justice who dissented in part is counted on the side they took overall. A justice who wrote nothing is listed as joining their side.
Positions are each justice’s Martin–Quinn score for the case’s term, the same scores as the Ideology page: negative is more liberal, positive more conservative. A score sums up a justice’s votes across the whole term, so it says where they usually sit, not why they voted as they did here. The median line is the Court’s median justice that term.
The parties
Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.
- Petitioner
- Thomas Freytag, et al.Taxpayer or executor of taxpayer's estate, federal only
- Respondent
- Commissioner of Internal RevenueInternal Revenue Service, Collector, Commissioner, or District Director
- Reached the Court by
- Certiorari (the Court chose to hear it)
Data notes
The names are the two sides of the case’s title. The description under each is the Supreme Court Database’s category for that party, in its own wording. The petitioner is the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the decision below. “Why it was taken” appears only when the majority opinion says lower courts disagreed or were unsure about the question; reasons that would fit any case (“to resolve the question presented”, “an important question”) are left out.
The law at issue
The law the Court was asked to apply, and the kind of power it used to decide.
- Provision
- Article II, Section 2, Paragraph 2 (appointments clause)
- Kind of law
- Constitution
- Decided by
- Judicial review (national level)
Data notes
The Supreme Court Database codes the main constitutional provision, statute or court rule each case turned on, and the basis of the decision: judicial review of a federal or state law, interpreting a statute, supervising the lower courts, and so on. A case can rest on more than one. “Overruled” counts only where the majority opinion says so.
Timeline
What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.
- Jun 27, 1991DecidedDecided · Decided 9–0: affirmed. Thomas Freytag, et al. lost.
- Apr 23, 1991ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
- Not datedTaken upTaken up · The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case (certiorari).
- Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit: affirmed.
- Not datedBeganBegan · The case began in the U.S. Tax Court.
Data notes
From the Supreme Court Database: the court the case began in, the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed and what that court did, how the case came to the Court, and the dates of argument and decision. The database does not date the steps in the lower courts. Court names are the database’s.
Other decisions on the same issue
16 other argued cases since 1946 on miscellaneous, newest first.
- Gundy v. United States139 S. Ct. 2116Jun 20, 2019 · 139 S. Ct. 2116Miscellaneous5–36–3 band
- Lucia v. SEC138 S. Ct. 2044Jun 21, 2018 · 138 S. Ct. 2044Miscellaneous7–27–2 band
- Hawaii et al. v. Office of Hawaiian Affairs et al.556 U.S. 163Mar 31, 2009 · 556 U.S. 163Miscellaneous9–0Unanimous band
- Department of Commerce, et al. v. United States House of Representatives et al.525 U.S. 316Jan 25, 1999 · 525 U.S. 316Miscellaneous6–36–3 band
- William J. Clinton, President of the United States, et al. v. City of New York, et al.Landmark · Separation of powers524 U.S. 417Jun 25, 1998 · 524 U.S. 417MiscellaneousLandmark · Separation of powers6–36–3 band
- Ed Plaut, et ux., et al. v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc., et al.Landmark · Separation of powers514 U.S. 211Apr 18, 1995 · 514 U.S. 211MiscellaneousLandmark · Separation of powers7–27–2 band
- Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, et al. v. Citizens for the Abatement of Aircraft Noise, Inc., et al.501 U.S. 252Jun 17, 1991 · 501 U.S. 252Miscellaneous6–36–3 band
- United States v. Stuart et al.489 U.S. 353Feb 28, 1989 · 489 U.S. 353Miscellaneous9–0Unanimous band
- Mistretta v. United States488 U.S. 361Jan 18, 1989 · 488 U.S. 361Miscellaneous8–18–1 band
- Morrison, Independent Counsel v. Olson et al.Landmark · Separation of powers487 U.S. 654Jun 27, 1988 · 487 U.S. 654MiscellaneousLandmark · Separation of powers7–18–1 band
- Phillips Petroleum Co. et al. v. Mississippi et al.484 U.S. 469Feb 23, 1988 · 484 U.S. 469Miscellaneous5–36–3 band
- Bowsher, Comptroller General of the United States v. Synar, Member of Congress, et al.Landmark · Separation of powers478 U.S. 714Jul 7, 1986 · 478 U.S. 714MiscellaneousLandmark · Separation of powers7–27–2 band
- First National City Bank v. Banco Para El Comercio Exterior de Cuba462 U.S. 611Jun 17, 1983 · 462 U.S. 611Miscellaneous6–36–3 band
- United States v. Will et al.449 U.S. 200Dec 15, 1980 · 449 U.S. 200Miscellaneous8–0Unanimous band
- Granville-Smith v. Granville-Smith349 U.S. 1Apr 11, 1955 · 349 U.S. 1Miscellaneous5–36–3 band
- Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. et al. v. SawyerLandmark · Domestic343 U.S. 579Jun 2, 1952 · 343 U.S. 579MiscellaneousLandmark · Domestic6–36–3 band
Data notes
Every other orally argued case with a clear vote, from the 1946 term on, that the Supreme Court Database files under the same issue as this one. The database gives each case one issue from a list of about 270 (abortion, search and seizure of vehicles, the death penalty, and so on), whatever law it turned on.
Official record
Read the full opinion on Justia, the argument audio on Oyez and Wikipedia. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.