Held:  No.
-    The appointment of inferior officers may be delegated to President, Court,
or agency heads.  Court held that the special counsel is an inferior officer
because (1) he is subject to removal by higher Executive Officer; (2) he is
empowered to perform only certain limited duties; (3) his jurisdiction is very
limited; (4) the office is limited in tenure.
-    Only constitutional limitation on Congress’ power to vest interbranch
appointment power is where the appointment is incongruous – some incongruity
between the functions normally performed by the appointing branch and the
performance of their duty to appoint.  It is proper for Congress to determine
whether to vest appointment of executive “inferior officer” in the Court.
-    Vesting power to terminate in the judiciary is not a significant
encroachment on executive power.  This power only available when the special
counsel’s work is done. Only Attorney General may terminate the office during the
investigation or court proceeding.  This power rests solely with the executive
branch (unless Congress impeaches or convicts special counsel).  Congress does not
have power of termination of executive officer.
-    Case distinguished from Bowsher on ground that Congress in this case has
not reserved power to remove executive officer.
-    This case allows for a slightly significant limitation to be placed by
Congress upon the President’s previously-untrammeled power to enforce the law.
-    If a principal officer then can’t by-pass the presentment clause.