SEC v. Jarkesy | |
---|---|
Argued November 29, 2023 | |
Full case name | Securities and Exchange Commission, Petitioner v. George R. Jarkesy, Jr., et al. |
Docket no. | 22-859 |
Argument | Oral argument |
Questions presented | |
(1) Whether statutory provisions that empower the Securities and Exchange Commission to initiate and adjudicate administrative enforcement proceedings seeking civil penalties violate the Seventh Amendment; and (2) whether statutory provisions that authorize the SEC to choose to enforce the securities laws through an agency adjudication instead of filing a district court action violate the nondelegation doctrine; and Contents | |
Court membership | |
|
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy (Docket No. 22-859) [1] is a case pending before the Supreme Court of the United States. In May 2022, Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held, under certain statutory provisions, the Securities and Exchanges Commission's administrative adjudication of fraud claims without jury trials in their administrative proceedings with their own administrative law judges (ALJs) rather than Article III judges violated three provisions of the Constitution.
First, the enforcement of Dodd Frank's civil penalties for securities fraud in the SEC's administrative proceedings violated the Seventh Amendment's guarantee of a jury trial because (a) the case involved traditional common law claims (fraud), (b) civil penalties are a legal remedy to which the Seventh Amendment attaches, thus (c) the claims are not a matter of public rights that can be adjudicated in administrative proceedings on the mere basis the government is the plaintiff; [2] [3] Second, under the first clause of Article I, where "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives," Dodd Frank's broad grant of unfettered discretion to the SEC to choose between enforcing identical claims in either federal district court or its own administrative tribunal violated the Nondelegation Doctrine because (a) the assignment of claims to a non-Article III tribunal is an Article I power, and (b) Congress provided—as the SEC conceded [4] [3] —no intelligible principle to the SEC. Third, the two layers of for-cause removal protections of ALJs violated Article II's Take Care Clause. [5] [6] [3]
The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari on June 30, 2023. [7]
Prior [8] to the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, [9] only registered entities like broker-dealers or licensed investment advisers were subject to the Investment Advisers Act's administrative enforcement provisions. In response to the 2008 market crash, [10] Congress purported to empower [11] the SEC to impose harsh civil penalties [12] against any [8] private citizen through its own administrative adjudications with only limited, after-the-fact review by a federal court of appeals. [13] Dodd-Frank effectively bestowed [14] to the SEC "coextensive" authority with federal court to impose civil penalties. [15] [8] [11]
In 2007 and 2009, George Jarkesy created two small hedge funds totaling $24 million that invested in bridge loans to start-up companies, equity investments principally in microcap companies, and life settlement policies. Jarkesy brought in Patriot28 LLC as an investment advisor to these funds. [16] In part due the 2008 market collapse, the funds lost value, and Jarkesy and Patriot28 were alleged by the SEC to have overestimated the value of the hedge fund assets and made other false claims. [17] Under Dodd-Frank's new provisions, after an investigation, the SEC opted to use internal proceedings rather than a jury trial to evaluate its claims against Jarkesy and Patriot28. [17] The SEC initiated the enforcement action on March 22, 2013, with its ALJ. [16] [18] The SEC's enforcement mechanism does not provide a jury trial or access to an Article III judge, only an in-house administrative law judge at the SEC. [19]
In 2014, Jarkesy and Patriot28 filed a collateral challenge to the administrative enforcement action in district court to stay the administrative proceedings, alleging that the proceedings violated his Seventh Amendment [20] and Equal Protection rights, [21] that Dodd-Frank violated the Non-delegation Doctrine, [20] and that the ALJs violate the Appointments Clause. [20] On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in 2015 applied Thunder Basin Coal Co. v. Reich's [22] implied jurisdictional preclusion of collateral lawsuits to the SEC's statutory structure, holding [23] that federal courts do not have subject matter jurisdiction to hear even structural constitutional claims until after the adjudicative process and final order of the Commission. [24] The D.C. Circuit did not address the merits of the constitutional objections [25] but held that Jarkesy was required to raise and exhaust his constitutional objections—about the ALJs and the SEC—to the ALJ and the SEC before judicial review of final agency action is available. [26] [21] [20] [25]
Five years after the SEC initiated the enforcement action against Jarkesy, the Supreme Court of the United States held in Lucia v. Securities and Exchange Commission in 2018 that the SEC's ALJs are inferior officers of the Executive Branch subject to the Appointments Clause of Article II of the United States Constitution and must be appointed by the President or a delegated officer. The Supreme Court's decision allowed any defendant in pending SEC administrative proceedings before unconstitutionally appointed ALJs to request a new ALJ and hearing. Jarkesy and Patriot28 waived the Lucia error remedy to avoid prolonging the adjudicative process.
In 2020, seven years after initiating the enforcement action, the Commission concluded that based on existing evidence from the ALJ's proceedings, Jarkesy and Patriot28 were liable, and the Commission imposed $300,000 in civil penalties and $685,000 in disgorgement. Jarkesy was also barred from any future investments-related activities. [24] Like the ALJ, the commission also rejected each of Jarkesy's constitutional challenges. Jarkesy appealed to the Fifth Circuit. [27] [17]
Five months after oral argument, the SEC issued a statement revealing a control deficiency where SEC staff misappropriated internal documents relating to Jarkesy along with Cochran v. SEC [28] which also raised constitutional challenges before the ALJ. Dating back to 2017, adjudication staff submitted memos to the commission, and because internal databases were improperly configured, personnel from the enforcement division had access to these adjudication memos. Under 5 U.S.C. § 554(d) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), these memoranda are supposed to be kept confidential within divisions to keep adjudicative, investigative and prosecutorial staff separated. The SEC claimed that while ten reports were affected, they did not find any evidence that the improper disclosures impacted its findings. [29] [30] This led to additional criticism of the SEC's enforcement practices from groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and called for reform of the SEC. [29]
The Fifth Circuit ruled on May 18, 2022, 2–1 in favor of Jarkesy. Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod, writing for the majority, found the SEC's administrative enforcement against Jarkesy to be unconstitutional in three ways: [24]
Judge Andy Oldham joined Judge Elrod in the majority. Senior Judge W. Eugene Davis dissented. [24]
The attorney for Jarkesy is S. Michael McColloch, while Daniel J. Aguilar of the Civil Division of the Department of Justice argued for the SEC. [42] [4]
ALJs are used by more than 30 administrative agencies, and the decision by the Fifth Circuit might impact how ALJs are used at these agencies if the decision stands. [17] However, at the end of March 2022, the SEC only had seven pending administrative enforcement actions in front of its three ALJs. [43] Legal experts believe Jarkesy is the first case that has held an administrative enforcement action brought to its ALJ must be tried by a jury. [5] Others point out that this is the first case in eighty years where Congress failed to provide an intelligible principle to survive a non-delegation challenge. [1]
The Supreme Court had already granted certiorari to Axon Enterprise, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission and SEC v. Cochran for the 2022–23 term, which address whether defendants in administrative proceedings can challenge in district court the constitutionality of ALJs within the Federal Trade Commission and the SEC before final agency action. The Supreme Court granted the petition for certiorari in Cochran two days prior to the Fifth Circuit's decision. [5] [44]
In common law jurisdictions, an acquittal means that the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the charge presented. It certifies that the accused is free from the charge of an offense, as far as criminal law is concerned. The finality of an acquittal is dependent on the jurisdiction. In some countries, such as the United States, an acquittal prohibits the retrial of the accused for the same offense, even if new evidence surfaces that further implicates the accused. The effect of an acquittal on criminal proceedings is the same whether it results from a jury verdict or results from the operation of some other rule that discharges the accused. In other countries, like Australia and the UK, the prosecuting authority may appeal an acquittal similar to how a defendant may appeal a conviction — but usually only if new and compelling evidence comes to light or the accused has interfered with or intimidated a juror or witness.
In law, a trier of fact or finder of fact is a person or group who determines disputed issues of fact in a legal proceeding and how relevant they are to deciding its outcome. To determine a fact is to decide, from the evidence presented, whether something existed or some event occurred. A finding of fact, also known as a conclusion of fact, refers to decisions made by the trier of fact on questions of fact in a case. Questions of fact arise when parties disagree on facts, and after presenting evidence, the trier of fact must decide what the facts are.
An administrative law judge (ALJ) in the United States is a judge and trier of fact who both presides over trials and adjudicates claims or disputes involving administrative law. ALJs can administer oaths, take testimony, rule on questions of evidence, and make factual and legal determinations.
United States federal administrative law encompasses statutes, regulations, rules, common law rulings, and directives issued by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Executive Office of the President, that together define the extent of powers and responsibilities held by administrative agencies of the United States government. The executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the U.S. federal government cannot always directly perform their constitutional responsibilities. Specialized powers are therefore delegated to an agency, board, or commission. These administrative governmental bodies oversee and monitor activities in complex areas, such as commercial aviation, medical device manufacturing, and securities markets.
Patrick Errol Higginbotham is an American judge and lawyer who serves as a Senior United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Muth v. Frank, 412 F.3d 808, was a case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled that the denial to an individual of a writ of habeas corpus for violation of Wisconsin's laws criminalizing incest was not unconstitutional. The petitioners relied heavily on the Supreme Court's ruling in Lawrence v. Texas invalidating anti-sodomy laws two years prior, which the Seventh Circuit rejected.
Jed Saul Rakoff is a senior United States district judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Schor, 478 U.S. 833 (1986), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held an administrative agency may, in some cases, exert jurisdiction over state-law counterclaims.
Richard Miles Berman is a senior United States district judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Company, 500 U.S. 614 (1991), was a United States Supreme Court case which held that peremptory challenges may not be used to exclude jurors on the basis of race in civil trials. Edmonson extended the court's similar decision in Batson v. Kentucky (1986), a criminal case. The Court applied the equal protection component of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, as determined in Bolling v. Sharpe (1954), in finding that such race-based challenges violated the Constitution.
Bigby v. Dretke 402 F.3d 551, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit heard a case appealed from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas on the issue of the instructions given to a jury in death penalty sentencing. The decision took into account the recent United States Supreme Court decisions concerning the relevance of mitigating evidence in sentencing, as in Penry v. Lynaugh.
Cormac Joseph Carney is a United States district judge of the United States District Court for the Central District of California.
William Eugene Davis, known as W. Eugene Davis, is a senior United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. His chambers are in New Orleans, Louisiana.
A tax protester is someone who refuses to pay a tax claiming that the tax laws are unconstitutional or otherwise invalid. Tax protesters are different from tax resisters, who refuse to pay taxes as a protest against a government or its policies, or a moral opposition to taxation in general, not out of a belief that the tax law itself is invalid. The United States has a large and organized culture of people who espouse such theories. Tax protesters also exist in other countries.
Connection Distributing Co. v. Holder, 557 F.3d 321 is a case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that the record-keeping provisions of the Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act did not violate the First Amendment.
Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U.S. 228 (1896), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court found that the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution forbid the imprisonment at hard labor without a jury trial for noncitizens convicted of illegal entry to or presence in the United States.
Lucia v. Securities and Exchange Commission, 585 U.S. ___ (2018), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States on the status of administrative law judges of the Securities and Exchange Commission. The Court held that they are considered inferior officers of the United States and so are subject to the Appointments Clause and must be appointed through the President or other delegated officer of the United States, rather than hired. As "inferior" officers, their appointments are not subject to the Senate's advice and consent role.
Wolf v. Vidal, 591 U.S. ___ (2020), was a case that was filed to challenge the Trump Administration's rescission of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). Plaintiffs in the case are DACA recipients who argue that the rescission decision is unlawful under the Administrative Procedure Act and the Fifth Amendment. On February 13, 2018, Judge Garaufis in the Eastern District of New York addressed the question of whether the government offered a legally adequate reason for ending the DACA program. The court found that Defendants did not provide a legally adequate reason for ending the DACA program and that the decision to end DACA was arbitrary and capricious. Defendants have appealed the decision to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.
Axon Enterprise, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission, 598 U.S. ___ (2023), was a United States Supreme Court case related to administrative law.
A grant of appellate review is dismissed as improvidently granted (DIG) when a court with discretionary appellate jurisdiction later decides that it should not review the case. Notably, the Supreme Court of the United States occasionally grants a petition of the writ of certiorari, only to later DIG the case.