In the case of Glidden Company v. Zdanok et al., 1961, the U.S Supreme Court was asked to determine whether decisions made by judges appointed under Article I of the Constitution had legal standing in cases that required an appointment under Article III. The appellants argued that their convictions for contempt should be overturned because they were decided by judges who lacked constitutional authority to preside over such cases. The court held a complex and divided opinion but ultimately ruled against this argument, affirming that these judges did have proper jurisdiction and authority. This decision clarified judicial appointments and upheld the validity of rulings from courts with Article I-appointed judges, thus reinforcing confidence in a broad range of federal adjudications.

In the dissenting opinion for Glidden Company v. Zdanok et al., Justice Harlan argued that the Court of Claims and the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals should not be considered Article III courts, but rather legislative courts created by Congress under its Article I powers. He contended that these courts did not have life tenure or salary protection as required by Article III, which is a fundamental safeguard to judicial independence. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's interpretation of historical precedents regarding these two tribunals' status. He believed this decision could potentially undermine other federal agencies whose administrative law judges do not enjoy life tenure or salary protections either. Lastly, he expressed concern about potential implications on separation of powers principles if such non-Article III bodies were allowed to exercise judicial power in ways traditionally reserved for true constitutional courts.