# Edmond v. United States **Edmond v. United States**, 520 U.S. 651, decided **May 19, 1997**, is the case that supplied the working test for who counts as an **[[Inferior Officer]]** under the [[Appointments Clause]]. Justice Scalia wrote; the judgment was unanimous, with Justice Souter joining only Parts I–II and concurring in the judgment. The test: inferior officers are those "whose work is directed and supervised at some level by others who were appointed by Presidential nomination with the advice and consent of the Senate." Supervision, not the scope of duties, is the criterion. The Court **distinguished** [[Morrison v. Olson]] rather than overruling it, noting that *Morrison* "did not purport to set forth a definitive test." *Edmond*'s significance for the special counsel question is that it displaced *Morrison*'s multi-factor approach with a supervision test — and a [[Special Counsel]] under 28 C.F.R. Part 600 is supervised by the [[Attorney General]] in exactly the ways the regulation describes, which is the strongest argument that the appointment is valid. By [[United States v. Arthrex]] (2021) the Court was treating *Edmond* as "the governing test" and citing *Morrison* not at all. This is a stub — expand with the Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals facts and the *Arthrex* line. ## See Also - [[Special Counsel Appointment and Removal Flow]] - [[Morrison v. Olson]] · [[Appointments Clause]] · [[Inferior Officer]] - [[Seila Law v. CFPB]] · [[Removal Power]]