The U.S. Supreme Court case Lucia v. SEC in 2017 revolved around the constitutionality of administrative law judges (ALJs) appointed by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Raymond J. Lucia, a former radio host and investment advisor, was charged with securities fraud by an ALJ who imposed sanctions on him. Lucia argued that this violated his constitutional rights because ALJs are "officers" under the Appointments Clause of the Constitution and must be appointed by either the President, courts of law or heads of departments - not hired as employees as they were at SEC. The Supreme Court agreed with Lucia's argument in a 7-2 decision stating that these judges had significant authority to shape proceedings, thus qualifying them as officers subject to appointment rules under Article II section 2 clause 2 of US Constitution.

In the dissenting opinion for Lucia v. SEC, Justice Breyer argued that administrative law judges (ALJs) of the Securities and Exchange Commission are not "officers" under the Appointments Clause but rather employees because their decisions are not final and binding until reviewed by a higher authority within the agency. He emphasized that ALJs do not have power to enforce subpoenas, issue contempt citations or make final decisions on behalf of an agency unless approved by politically accountable officials. Therefore, they should be considered as employees who assist in adjudication process rather than officers who exercise significant authority pursuant to laws of United States. Furthermore, he expressed concern about potential implications this ruling could have on other federal agencies with similar positions which may lead to challenges regarding legitimacy of actions taken by such individuals.