Cite as: 519 U. S. 248 (1997)
Opinion of Scalia, J.
named as respondents. By making the Rule much more than that, and then flatly misidentifying, through sheer will power, the agency whose "order" is at issue, the Court creates a zany system in which an Executive officer from whom the Board has carefully been made independent, and one who will often disagree with—and perhaps even have argued against—the Board's judgment, will be charged with "defending" that judgment in the court of appeals, where, once arrived, he is free instead to maintain an independent attack upon the judgment, even though, as we held in Newport News, he would not have been able to launch that attack by appealing on his own. Today's disposition regarding the Director's status is at odds with the relevant provisions of law and creates the potential for disruption of orderly litigation and settlement of disputes between employers and employees. I respectfully dissent from that portion of the judgment.
277
Page: Index Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30Last modified: October 4, 2007