The U.S. Supreme Court case Freytag v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue in 1990 revolved around the appointment and authority of special trial judges (STJs) within the United States Tax Court system. The petitioners, Thomas Freytag and others, challenged that STJs were not constitutionally appointed according to the Appointments Clause as they were selected by the Chief Judge rather than by the President or a department head. They also argued that these STJs had too much power for an inferior officer role since they could make final decisions on certain tax disputes without review from regular Tax Court judges. However, in a unanimous decision, it was ruled that STJ appointments did meet constitutional requirements because even though chosen by Chief Judges, those positions are considered "Heads of Departments". Furthermore, despite their ability to render some final decisions independently under certain circumstances; overall supervision and potential review from regular Tax Court judges meant their roles remained consistent with being classified as 'inferior officers'.

In the dissenting opinion for Freytag v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Justice Scalia disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "Courts of Law" in Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 (the Appointments Clause) to include Tax Court. He argued that this clause should only apply to courts established under Article III and not those created by Congress under its legislative powers like the Tax Court. Furthermore, he contended that even if one were to accept that "Courts of Law" could extend beyond Article III courts, it would be inappropriate to classify tax court as such because they do not exercise 'judicial' power but rather a form of executive or administrative power instead. Therefore, according to his interpretation, special trial judges appointed by Chief Judges are constitutional since they don't fall within the scope defined by Appointments Clause.