Axon Enterprise, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission

Last updated

Axon Enterprise, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued November 7, 2022
Decided April 14, 2023
Full case nameAxon Enterprise, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission, et al.
Securities and Exchange Commission, et al. v. Michelle Cochran
Docket nos. 21-86
21-1239
Citations598 U.S. 175 ( more )
Argument Oral argument
Opinion announcement Opinion announcement
Questions presented
1. Whether Congress implicitly stripped federal district courts of jurisdiction over constitutional challenges to the Federal Trade Commission's structure, procedures, and existence by granting the courts of appeals jurisdiction to "affirm, enforce, modify, or set aside" the Commission's cease-and-desist orders.
2. Whether a federal district court has jurisdiction to hear a suit in which the respondent in an ongoing Securities and Exchange Commission administrative proceeding seeks to enjoin that proceeding, based on an alleged constitutional defect in the statutory provisions that govern the removal of the administrative law judge who will conduct the proceeding.
Holding
The statutory review schemes set out in the Securities Exchange Act and Federal Trade Commission Act do not displace a district court's federal-question jurisdiction over claims challenging as unconstitutional the structure or existence of the SEC or FTC.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Clarence Thomas  · Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor  · Elena Kagan
Neil Gorsuch  · Brett Kavanaugh
Amy Coney Barrett  · Ketanji Brown Jackson
Case opinions
MajorityKagan, joined by Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Sotomayor, Kavanaugh, Barrett, Jackson
ConcurrenceThomas
ConcurrenceGorsuch (in judgment)
Laws applied
Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914
Securities Exchange Act of 1934

598 U.S. 175 (2023), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that the statutory review schemes set out in the [[Securities Exchange do not displace a district court's federal-question jurisdiction over claims challenging as unconstitutional the structure or existence of the SEC or FTC.

Contents

Background

Axon Enterprise v. FTC

Axon Enterprise manufactures Tasers and police-worn body cameras. In May 2018, Axon purchased its competitor in the body camera market, Vievu LLC, for $13 million. The Federal Trade Commission soon began an antitrust investigation into Axon. The company offered to settle, but the FTC declined. In January 2020, Axon filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, challenging the constitutionality of FTC's structure. The district court dismissed the case, holding that federal law stripped it of jurisdiction to consider constitutional claims against the FTC while proceedings were underway. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed in a 2–1 vote. Judge Patrick J. Bumatay dissented. Axon Enterprise then filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court in July 2021, which was subsequently granted in January 2022. [1]

SEC v. Cochran

The Securities and Exchange Commission brought an enforcement against Michelle Cochran, a certified public accountant, in April 2016 for failure to comply with the auditing standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board. After a hearing before the SEC's internal administrative law judges, the SEC imposed a fine and banned her from practicing before the SEC. While the case was still pending, the Supreme Court entered its ruling in Lucia v. SEC which held the SEC's ALJs must be appointed in accordance with the Appointments Clause. In response, the SEC reassigned Cochran's case to a new ALJ. In January 2018, Cochran filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, challenging the constitutionality of the SEC's structure. The district court dismissed the case, holding federal law stripped it of jurisdiction to consider constitutional claims against the SEC while proceedings were underway. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed in a 2–1 vote. In a divided opinion, the Fifth Circuit sitting en banc reversed the decision, holding the district court had jurisdiction to hear the claim. The SEC then filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court in March 2022, which was subsequently granted in May 2022. [2]

Arguments

The issue argued by the parties was whether the language of the FTC Act (and Exchange Act) precludes district court jurisdiction over Axon and Cochran's claims. And even if it does, Axon and Cochran's claims fall outside the acts' statutory schemes of jurisdiction and, therefore, are subject to district court jurisdiction regardless.

In discerning whether a claim falls outside a statute's review provision, the court in Thunder Basin Coal v. Reich set forth a three-factor test; courts must survey whether the claim enjoys meaningful review under the statute, whether the claim is 'wholly collateral' to the review scheme, and whether the claim is outside the agency's expertise. [3] The arguments presented in the briefs and oral arguments mostly pertained to the language of the acts and the bearing of the Thunder Basin factors on the claims at hand.

The government argued that the detailed and comprehensive character of the FTC and Exchange Acts' review schemes instructs the courts that the jurisdiction provided in those schemes is exclusive. Those schemes provide jurisdiction to appellate courts over final agency orders (cease and desist orders in the FTC Act), and so the government contended - the exhaustivity of the schemes implicitly precludes district courts jurisdiction and any jurisdiction over matters mid-proceeding. The government cited the APA as concurrently stating that only final agency action is reviewable by courts. [4] Axon and Cochran argued that the FTC and Exchange Acts cannot be construed as limiting jurisdiction, because the district courts were granted original jurisdiction over constitutional claims; jurisdiction traditionally left intact unless expressly stripped away. Axon resisted the government's inference, stressing that the FTC and Exchange Acts only ever expressly grant jurisdiction and never expressly limit it. [5] As to the APA, Axon and Cochran argued that the act only applies when the administrative regime provides adequate relief which it does not for the claims at hand. [6]

Axon and Cochran further argued that Thunder Basin works in their favor. First, they contested that the acts' review schemes do not afford any avenue for a meaningful review of their claims. An appeal after culmination of agency action offers no remedy for their 'here-and-now' injury of being subjected to an unconstitutional process. [7] Next they argued that their claims are 'wholly collateral' to the review schemes, as their claims are aimed at the very existence and structure of the agencies. [8] And third they argued that the agencies do not have the expertise needed to review their claims, no level of qualification in antitrust administrative law is of use in deciding constitutional questions. [9] What is more, no agency has the authority to declare itself unconstitutional, all the more so in this case where the provision in question is not even a part of the FTC Act. [10]

The government, in turn, disputed Axon and Cochran's analysis of the Thunder Basin factors. With regard to the first factor, the government stressed that all parts of an agency's proceeding are reviewable in an appellate court. Answering Axon's 'here-and-now' injury claim, the government cited the FTC v. Standard Oil holding that "[m]ere litigation expense, even substantial and unrecoupable cost, does not constitute irreparable injury." [11] Next the government attacked the purported collateralness, pressing that Axon's claims did not arise 'outside' the administrative enforcement scheme but as an integral part of it; [12] real 'collateral' claims are claims such as immunity, which attack the legitimacy of the proceedings' commencement itself. [13] As for the lack of expertise claims, the government contended that constitutional review might be avoided altogether if the reviewer wins at the agency level. Therefore, premature review in the district court is ill-advised as a matter of constitutional avoidance. [14] The government gave further premonition: allowing for mid-proceeding appeals "would also burden reviewing courts, requiring them to engage in piecemeal review and to decide issues whose resolution might prove to have been unnecessary upon completion of the agency proceeding". [15]

The case's similarity to previous Supreme Court precedent prompted much comparing and contrasting by both sides, especially with regards to Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board . Axon and Cochran described Free Enterprise Fund as nearly analogous to this case, in that both involve claims "go[ing] to the very existence of the agency... wholly collateral to the merits of any acquisition... beyond the competence of the agency. And [that in both] the agency is not in a position to provide meaningful relief." [16] The government, however, emphasized that in Free Enterprise Fund the constitutional objections were directed at the PCAOB investigations, not the agency, and were granted review by district courts precisely because they were not agency proceedings reviewable under the review position. Moreover, much weight was given in Free Enterprise Fund to the fact that petitioners would need to incur penalty upon themselves in order to enter appealable agency proceedings, here on the other hand, Axon and Cochran were already subject to agency proceedings. [17]

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court granted certiorari in Axon's appeal on January 24, 2022. On May 16, 2022, it subsequently granted certiorari in Cochran's case, as both agencies' statutes have similar language. Oral arguments were held separately on November 7, 2022. On April 14, 2023, the Court reversed the Ninth Circuit and affirmed the Fifth Circuit, siding with the challengers in both cases, ruling that they could bring suit in federal court. Justice Elena Kagan wrote the majority opinion for herself and seven other justices; Justice Clarence Thomas concurred, and Justice Neil Gorsuch concurred only in the judgment.

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Appellate procedure in the United States</span> National rules of court appeals

United States appellate procedure involves the rules and regulations for filing appeals in state courts and federal courts. The nature of an appeal can vary greatly depending on the type of case and the rules of the court in the jurisdiction where the case was prosecuted. There are many types of standard of review for appeals, such as de novo and abuse of discretion. However, most appeals begin when a party files a petition for review to a higher court for the purpose of overturning the lower court's decision.

Tory v. Cochran, 544 U.S. 734 (2005), is a United States Supreme Court case involving libel.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Procedures of the Supreme Court of the United States</span>

The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest court in the federal judiciary of the United States. The procedures of the Court are governed by the U.S. Constitution, various federal statutes, and its own internal rules. Since 1869, the Court has consisted of one chief justice and eight associate justices. Justices are nominated by the president, and with the advice and consent (confirmation) of the U.S. Senate, appointed to the Court by the president. Once appointed, justices have lifetime tenure unless they resign, retire, or are removed from office.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2005 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States</span>

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down sixteen per curiam opinions during its 2005 term, which lasted from October 3, 2005, until October 1, 2006.

Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, 549 U.S. 497 (2007), is a 5–4 U.S. Supreme Court case in which Massachusetts, along with eleven other states and several cities of the United States, represented by James Milkey, brought suit against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) represented by Gregory G. Garre to force the federal agency to regulate the emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases (GHGs) that pollute the environment and contribute to climate change.

Al Odah v. United States is a court case filed by the Center for Constitutional Rights and co-counsels challenging the legality of the continued detention as enemy combatants of Guantanamo detainees. It was consolidated with Boumediene v. Bush (2008), which is the lead name of the decision.

United States ex rel. Eisenstein v. City of New York, 556 U.S. 928 (2009), is a United States Supreme Court decision holding that where the Government has not intervened or actively participated, private plaintiffs under the False Claims Act must file an appeal within 30 days of the judgment or order being appealed, according to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency, 566 U.S. 120 (2012), also known as Sackett I, is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that orders issued by the Environmental Protection Agency under the Clean Water Act are subject to the Administrative Procedure Act. The Court ruled that because the Environmental Protection Agency's orders constitute "final agency action" under the Administrative Procedure Act, federal courts may hear appeals from its orders.

Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick, 559 U.S. 154 (2010), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States involving copyright law. The Court held that failure to register a copyright under Section 411 (a) of the United States Copyright Act does not limit a Federal Court's jurisdiction over claims of infringement regarding unregistered works.

In law, an appeal is the process in which cases are reviewed by a higher authority, where parties request a formal change to an official decision. Appeals function both as a process for error correction as well as a process of clarifying and interpreting law. Although appellate courts have existed for thousands of years, common law countries did not incorporate an affirmative right to appeal into their jurisprudence until the 19th century.

King v. Burwell, 576 U.S. 473 (2015), was a 6–3 decision by the Supreme Court of the United States interpreting provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA). The Court's decision upheld, as consistent with the statute, the outlay of premium tax credits to qualifying persons in all states, both those with exchanges established directly by a state, and those otherwise established by the Department of Health and Human Services.

Lucia v. Securities and Exchange Commission, 585 U.S. 237 (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.

Frank v. Gaos, 586 U.S. ___ (2019), was a per curiam decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in a case concerning the practice of cy pres settlements in class action lawsuits. Following oral argument, the court asked the parties to submit supplemental briefs addressing whether the parties had Article III standing to pursue the case in federal courts. Supplemental briefing was completed on December 21, 2018. On March 20, 2019, the court remanded the case to the Ninth Circuit to address the plaintiffs’ standing in light of Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins.

Sharp v. Murphy, 591 U.S. ___ (2020), was a Supreme Court of the United States case of whether Congress disestablished the Muscogee (Creek) Nation reservation. After holding the case from the 2018 term, the case was decided on July 9, 2020, in a per curiam decision following McGirt v. Oklahoma that, for the purposes of the Major Crimes Act, the reservations were never disestablished and remain Indian country.

New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. City of New York, New York, 590 U.S. ___ (2020), abbreviated NYSRPA v. NYC and also known as NYSRPA I to distinguish it from the subsequent case, was a case addressing whether the gun ownership laws of New York City, which restrict the transport of a licensed firearm out of one's home, violated the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, the U.S. Constitution's Commerce Clause, and the right to travel. It was the first major gun-related case that the Supreme Court had accepted for review in nearly ten years, after District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010). After the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, New York City and the New York State Legislature amended city and state law respectively to allay the challenged provision. In a per curiam decision in April 2020, the Supreme Court determined that the case was moot, vacating and remanding the case to lower courts to determine "whether petitioners may still add a claim for damages in this lawsuit with respect to New York City's old rule".

Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt, 587 U.S. 230 (2019), was a United States Supreme Court case that determined that unless they consent, states have sovereign immunity from private suits filed against them in the courts of another state. The 5–4 decision overturned precedent set in a 1979 Supreme Court case, Nevada v. Hall. This was the third time that the litigants had presented their case to the Court, as the Court had already ruled on the issue in 2003 and 2016.

Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam, 591 U.S. ___ (2020), was a United States Supreme Court case involving whether the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, which limits habeas corpus judicial review of the decisions of immigration officers, violates the Suspension Clause of Article One of the U.S. Constitution. In the 7–2 opinion, the Court ruled that the law does not violate the Suspension Clause.

Home Depot U. S. A., Inc. v. Jackson, 587 U.S. ___ (2019), was a United States Supreme Court case which determined that a third-party defendant to a counterclaim submitted in a state-court civil action cannot remove their case to federal court. The Court explained, in a 5–4 decision, that although a third-party counterclaim defendant is a "defendant to a claim," removal can only be performed by the defendant to a "civil action." And this holds true even when the counterclaim is in the form of a class action. The Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 permits removal by "any defendant to a class action" but this does not extend removal rights to a third-party counterclaim defendant because they are not a defendant to the original case.

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy was a case before the Supreme Court of the United States. In May 2022, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held, under certain statutory provisions, the Securities and Exchange 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. The justices ruled that the Securities and Exchange Commission violated the Seventh Amendment.

Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1 (2012), was a United States Supreme Court case about ineffective assistance of counsel claims which allowed a narrow exception to Coleman v. Thompson. Coleman said that inadequate post-conviction counsel is not cause to excuse procedural default for a state habeas claim that was filed late under the state's procedural rules. The Supreme Court may excuse a procedural default if state procedures do not allow at least one "full and fair" opportunity to litigate the constitutional claim. The narrow holding of Martinez excused procedural default caused by attorney error in "initial review collateral proceedings" where state law requires that ineffective assistance claims are raised in post-conviction proceedings and makes no provision for post-conviction counsel.

References

  1. ↑ Howe, Amy (January 24, 2022). "Justices take up cases on power of district courts and regulation of wetlands". SCOTUSblog . Retrieved January 24, 2022.
  2. ↑ Howe, Amy (May 16, 2022). "Justices grant review in two cases that test jurisdiction of district courts". SCOTUSblog . Retrieved July 2, 2022.
  3. ↑ Thunder Basin Coal v. Reich, 510 U.S. 200, 212 (1994).
  4. ↑ Consolidated response brief of federal parties, Axon Enterprise, Inc. v. FTC, 23–32.
  5. ↑ Brief of petitioner Axon Enterprise, Inc., Axon Enterprise, Inc. v. FTC 32–34.
  6. ↑ Transcript of Oral Argument, Axon Enterprise, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission (21-86). Oyez. Retrieved at https://www.oyez.org/cases/2022/21-86
  7. ↑ Brief of petitioner Axon Enterprise, Inc, 35–38
  8. ↑ Reply of petitioner Axon Enterprise, Inc., Axon Enterprise, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission, 9–10
  9. ↑ Reply of petitioner Axon Enterprise, Inc., 11–12.
  10. ↑ Transcript of Oral Arguments.[ page needed ]
  11. ↑ Consolidated response brief of federal parties, 48.
  12. ↑ Brief of respondents Federal Trade Commission, Axon Enterprise, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission, 10.
  13. ↑ Transcript of Oral Arguments.
  14. ↑ Consolidated response brief of federal parties, 45.
  15. ↑ Consolidated response brief of federal parties, 15.
  16. ↑ Transcript of Oral Arguments.
  17. ↑ Consolidated response brief of federal parties, 49–52.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.