The size of the error on appointments would appear to be unprecedented

Legal experts are weighing in on the House Energy and Commerce Committee investigation that has uncovered evidence that Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Xavier Becerra may have failed follow the Constitution or the law to properly appoint 14 senior officials at the National Institutes of Health, including Dr. Fauci, which could have grave consequences.

Excerpts and highlights from Constitutional Law Professor Jonathan Turley’s analysis of the Committee's investigation.

Dr. Anthony Fauci has faced intense scrutiny in the past over his testimony denying any funding of "gain-of-function" research at the Wuhan lab in China. However, the most serious question now may be whether Fauci was who he said he was in those hearings: the then-director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID).

On Friday, the House Committee on Energy and Commerce issued a letter to Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Xavier Becerra that raises the disturbing question of whether Fauci and 13 other National Institutes of Health (NIH) institute and center directors were unlawfully holding their offices for some period. Not only did these directors make sweeping policy changes for the nation but, in 2022 alone, they awarded more than $25 billion in federal biomedical grants.

[…]

CNN's senior medical correspondent, Elizabeth Cohen, once gushed that when "Dr. Fauci talks, he's just like a regular guy." It turns out she might have been more accurate than she thought -- because Fauci legally may have been just a "regular guy" giving out billions without authority.

What is equally baffling is that the House informed the administration that it was presumptively in violation of federal law. What followed were convoluted and confusing statements from the administration on a very simple question: Did Becerra appoint these directors? 

[…]

The size of the error on appointments would appear to be unprecedented. What is clear is that such a violation would constitute a shocking level of administrative incompetence. It also is clear that the House committee can now demand — and, if necessary, compel — answers from Becerra on whether federal law was knowingly flaunted and whether Congress was actively misled. 

CLICK HERE to read all of Constitutional Law Professor Jonathan Turley’s analysis.

Excerpts and highlights from CBS's exclusive coverage of the Committee's investigation.

"Institute directors with discretion to award billions or even hundreds of millions in research funding are, by definition, exercising significant authority pursuant to the laws of the United States. As such, institute directors are the quintessential 'inferior officers,'" a former senior HHS official told CBS News.

"The Secretary cannot delegate his or her constitutional authority to appoint inferior officers. It is my understanding that prior administrations of both parties zealously guarded the appointments process and took care to ensure that inferior officers were properly appointed," said the former senior official, who previously served in the Bush, Reagan and Trump administrations.

CLICK HERE to read more in CBS News.

CLICK HERE to read more about the Committee’s investigation.