This distinction was important as judges of Article III courts are considered part of the independent judiciary as they are appointed for life and their salary cannot be decreased, which is in turn considered a requirement for the operation of judiciary as a separate branch of government.

It was contended that as the judgments of the Court of Claims had traditionally required Congressional appropriation to pay prevailing plaintiffs, because the Court of Claims issued advisory reports in response to matters referred to it by Congress under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1492, and because the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals could review certain administrative decisions of the Tariff Commission under 28 U.S.C.

Justice Clark, writing for himself and the Chief Justice, concurred in the result, but concurred on the grounds that the 1953 and 1958 Acts made the courts Article III courts in light of the confusion that led to the Bakelite and Williams decisions, which were otherwise accurate.

The same confluence of practical considerations that dictated the result in Canter has governed the decision in later cases sanctioning the creation of other courts with judges of limited tenure.

Nor has there been any settled practice on the part of Congress which gives special significance to the absence or presence of a provision respecting the tenure of judges.

[5]In United States v. Coe, for example, the Court sustained the authority of the Court of Private Land Claims to adjudicate claims under treaties to land in the territories, but left it expressly open whether such a course might be followed within the States.

[7] This permitted the Court of Claims to resume hearing Congressional reference cases, which it had ceased accepting in light of Glidden.