5 U.S.C. § 3349c

Exclusion of certain officers

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 5 CasesGoogle Scholar

Sections 3345 through 3349b shall not apply to—(1) any member who is appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate to any board, commission, or similar entity that—(A) is composed of multiple members; and(B) governs an independent establishment or Government corporation;(2) any commissioner of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission;(3) any member of the Surface Transportation Board; or(4) any judge appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to a court constituted under article I of the United States Constitution.(Added Pub. L. 105–277, div. C, title I, § 151(b), Oct. 21, 1998, 112 Stat. 2681–615.)Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date

Section effective 30 days after Oct. 21, 1998, and applicable to any office that becomes vacant after such effective date, with certain exceptions, see section 151(d) of Pub. L. 105–277, set out as a note under section 3345 of this title.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 16 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1999–2025 · leading case: Guedes v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, & Explosives, 356 F. Supp. 3d 109 (D.C. Cir. 2019).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Guedes v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, & Explosives, 356 F. Supp. 3d 109 (D.C. Cir. 2019). “5 U.S.C. § 3349c. Congress could have chosen to exclude the Office of the Attorney General by using similar language, but it did not.”

Canning v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 705 F.3d 490 (D.C. Cir. 2013). “See 5 U.S.C. § 3349c(l)(A). But that choice cannot support the Board’s interpretation of the Clause.”

United States v. David Smith, 962 F.3d 755 (4th Cir. 2020). “, 5 U.S.C. § 3349c; 6 U.S.C. § 113 (g). But the AG Act offers no hint that Congress tried to displace the FVRA; in fact, every indication points the other way.”

Designating an Acting Dir. of the Fed. Hous. Fin. Agency (OLC 2019). · cites it 4× “5 U.S.C. § 3349c. The contrast between those two provisions reinforced our conclusion that section 3347(a)’s non-exclusivity provision does not preclude the use of the Vacancies Reform Act when another statute applies to an office but does not itself purport to be exclusive.”

English v. Trump (D.D.C. 2018). · cites it 3× “See 5 U.S.C. § 3349c. Congress could easily have added the CFPB’s Director to that list of exclusions, but it did not do so.”

Designating an Acting Attorney Gen. (OLC 2018). · cites it 2× “5 U.S.C. § 3349c. Office-specific statutes, however, are mentioned in a different section (entitled “Exclusivity”) that generally makes the Vacancies Reform Act “the exclusive means” for naming an acting officer but also specifies exceptions to that exclusivity.”

Temp. Presidential Designation of Acting Bd. Members of the Inter-Am. Found. & the United States African Dev. Found. (OLC 2025). · cites it 2× “We do not read these two subsections to indirectly override the express exclusion in 5 U.S.C. § 3349c or otherwise foreclose the President’s ability to act through his constitutional authority when Congress has not provided a method for naming acting officers.”

Sara Aviel v. Sergio Gor (D.C. Cir. 2025). · cites it 2× “See 5 U.S.C. § 3349c(1). And in any event, Marocco would not have qualified for such a designation.”

Designating an Acting Dir. of the Bureau of Consum. Fin. Prot. (OLC 2017). “In 5 U.S.C. § 3349c, Congress specified that the Vacancies Reform Act “shall not apply” to the following officers: (1) any member who is appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate to any board, commission, or similar entity that— (A) is composed…”

Guedes v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, & Explosives (D.D.C. 2019). “5 U.S.C. § 3349c. Congress could have chosen to exclude the Office of the Attorney General by using similar language, but it did not.”

Designating an Acting Dir. of the Bureau of Consum. Fin. Prot. (OLC 2017). “9 Opinions of the Office of Legal Counsel in Volume 41 In 5 U.S.C. § 3349c, Congress specified that the Vacancies Reform Act “shall not apply” to the following officers: (1) any member who is appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate to any…”

Show all 16 citing cases →

— 5 U.S.C. § 3349c(1) — 4 cases

English v. Trump (D.D.C. 2018). “See 5 U.S.C. § 3349c. Congress could easily have added the CFPB’s Director to that list of exclusions, but it did not do so.”

Temp. Presidential Designation of Acting Bd. Members of the Inter-Am. Found. & the United States African Dev. Found. (OLC 2025). “We do not read these two subsections to indirectly override the express exclusion in 5 U.S.C. § 3349c or otherwise foreclose the President’s ability to act through his constitutional authority when Congress has not provided a method for naming acting officers.”

Sara Aviel v. Sergio Gor (D.C. Cir. 2025). “See 5 U.S.C. § 3349c(1). And in any event, Marocco would not have qualified for such a designation.”

Aviel v. Gor (D.D.C. 2025).

— 5 U.S.C. § 3349c(1)(A) — 1 case

Designating an Acting Dir. of the Fed. Hous. Fin. Agency (OLC 2019). “5 U.S.C. § 3349c. The contrast between those two provisions reinforced our conclusion that section 3347(a)’s non-exclusivity provision does not preclude the use of the Vacancies Reform Act when another statute applies to an office but does not itself purport to be exclusive.”

— 5 U.S.C. § 3349c(1)(B) — 1 case

Sara Aviel v. Sergio Gor (D.C. Cir. 2025). “See 5 U.S.C. § 3349c(1). And in any event, Marocco would not have qualified for such a designation.”

— 5 U.S.C. § 3349c(l)(A) — 1 case

Canning v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 705 F.3d 490 (D.C. Cir. 2013). “See 5 U.S.C. § 3349c(l)(A). But that choice cannot support the Board’s interpretation of the Clause.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.