In Lucia v. SEC, this Court held that
administrative law judges of the United States
Securities and Exchange Commission are "Officers of
the United States" subject to the Appointments
Clause, and it reaffirmed that "one who makes a
timely challenge to the constitutional validity of the
appointment of an officer who adjudicates his case' is
entitled to relief'—specifically, "a new 'hearing before
a properly appointed official." 138 S. Ct. 2044, 2055
(2018) (quoting Ryder v. United States, 515 U.S. 177,
182-83 (1995)). Lower courts, however, have struggled
to define the contours of what constitutes a "timely
challenge" to the validity of a government official's
appointment under the Appointments Clause. In this
case, the Ninth Circuit added to the uncertainty by
refusing to entertain Petitioners' challenge to the
appointment of the Public Company Accounting
Oversight Board hearing officer who adjudicated their
case, despite Petitioners' having repeatedly contested
the constitutional validity of the administrative
framework of their proceeding at all stages—including
challenging the appointment of that officer—because
Petitioners did not specifically invoke "the
Appointments Clause" as the basis for their structural
constitutional objections.

The question presented is:

Whether petitioners who timely challenge the
constitutional validity of the administrative
framework, including the appointment of the officer
adjudicating their case, are nonetheless ineligible for
relief unless they specifically name "the Appointments
Clause" as the basis for their constitutional objections.

Whether petitioners who timely challenge the constitutional validity of the administrative framework, including the appointment of the officer adjudicating their case, are nonetheless ineligible for relief unless they specifically name 'the Appointments Clause' as the basis for their constitutional objections