## Facts

- Coast Guard service members (including Jon E. Edmond and others) were convicted by courts-martial.
- Their convictions were affirmed on appeal by the Coast Guard Court of Military Review (later the Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals (CGCCA)) and then by the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF).
- Two civilian judges served on the CGCCA: Chief Judge Joseph H. Baum and Judge Alfred F. Bridgman.
- The Department of Transportation’s General Counsel (who also served as the Coast Guard’s Judge Advocate General by statute) initially assigned Baum and Bridgman to the CGCCA.
- After a Supreme Court decision indicated that allowing civilians to serve as military appellate judges without Appointments Clause-compliant appointment raised a distinct constitutional question, the Secretary of Transportation issued a memorandum “adopting” the General Counsel’s prior assignments as the Secretary’s appointments.
- Petitioners argued that the Secretary lacked statutory authority to appoint civilian CGCCA judges and that, even if authorized, the judges were principal officers who required presidential appointment and Senate confirmation.

## Issues

1. Whether federal law authorized the Secretary of Transportation to appoint civilian judges to the Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals.
2. Whether judges of the Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals are “inferior Officers” who may be appointed by a department head, or “principal Officers” requiring presidential appointment with Senate confirmation under the Appointments Clause.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment upholding the convictions.
- The Court held that Congress authorized the Secretary of Transportation to appoint civilian judges to the CGCCA.
- The Court held that CGCCA judges are inferior officers, so their appointment by the Secretary (a department head) is constitutional.
- The Court concluded that the Secretary’s memorandum validly effectuated appointments for the post-memorandum appellate reviews at issue.

## Legal Principles

- Congress may vest appointment of inferior officers in the President alone, courts of law, or heads of departments.
- A broad statutory grant authorizing a department head to “appoint” department “officers and employees” can authorize appointments of civilian appellate judges within that department, absent a clear statutory withdrawal of that authority.
- “Inferior officers” are officers whose work is directed and supervised at some level by principal officers appointed by the President with Senate confirmation.
- Officers are more likely “inferior” where their decisions are subject to review within an executive-branch hierarchy and they lack authority to render final, unreviewable decisions for the United States.
- Removability by higher executive officials supports inferior-officer status as evidence of subordination.

## Conclusion

The Court held that the Secretary of Transportation had statutory authority to appoint civilian judges to the Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals and that those judges are inferior officers because their work is subject to executive supervision and appellate review, making the appointments constitutionally valid.


Edmond v. United States, 520 U.S. 651 (1997)