We will hear argument first this morning in case 24-316 Kennedy v. Braidwood management.

Mr. Mupin.

Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court,

task force members are inferior officers because they are subject to ample supervision by the

Secretary in issuing recommendations that bind the public.

Most importantly, the Secretary can remove

task force members at will. His power to remove them flows from his power to appoint them,

acting through the director's authorities. And this Court has repeatedly recognized that

at-will removal power is a powerful tool for control. Moreover, the Secretary can review task force

recommendations and prevent them from taking effect. During the minimum interval period, he can

direct the task force to rescind a recommendation, and he can replace task force members as needed

to ensure that happens. In addition, he can require the task force

to obtain his pre-approval before they issue any recommendation at all. Given these collective

powers of supervision, the task force cannot issue final recommendations that bind the

public unless the Secretary permits them to do so.

Respondent's contrary argument rests entirely on the statutory language providing that the task force shall be independent and to the extent practicable, not subject to political

pressure.

But as this Court's cases make clear, that language does not create a restriction on removing the task force members,

and it does not impose a bar on reviewing their recommendations.

It certainly does not do so clearly enough to overcome the canon of constitutional avoidance,

especially since the language itself contemplates some amount of political involvement.

In all events, if that statutory

...