Lucia v. Securities and Exchange Commission

Last updated

Lucia v. Securities and Exchange Commission
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued April 23, 2018
Decided June 21, 2018
Full case nameRaymond J. Lucia, et al. v. Security and Exchange Commission
Docket no. 17-130
Citations585 U.S. 237 ( more )
138 S. Ct. 2044; 201 L. Ed. 2d 464
Case history
PriorRaymond J. Lucia Cos. v. SEC, 832 F.3d 277 (D.C. Cir. 2016); petition for review denied by equally divided en banc court, 868 F.3d 1021 (D.C. Cir. 2017); cert. granted, 138 S. Ct. 736 (2018).
SubsequentRaymond J. Lucia Cos. v. SEC, 736 F. App'x 2 (D.C. Cir. 2018)
Holding
Administrative law judges of the Securities and Exchange Commission are considered officers of the United States and so are subject to the Appointments Clause.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Anthony Kennedy  · Clarence Thomas
Ruth Bader Ginsburg  · Stephen Breyer
Samuel Alito  · Sonia Sotomayor
Elena Kagan  · Neil Gorsuch
Case opinions
MajorityKagan, joined by Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch
ConcurrenceThomas, joined by Gorsuch
Concur/dissentBreyer, joined by Ginsburg, Sotomayor (Part III)
DissentSotomayor, joined by Ginsburg
Laws applied
U.S. Const., Art. II, §2, cl. 2

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. [1] As "inferior" officers, their appointments are not subject to the Senate's advice and consent role.

Contents

Background

Like many other government agencies, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) uses administrative law judges (ALJ) to act as a judge in resolving disputes for the agency related to administrative law, those laws that describe how the agency is run. Prior to this case, through November 2017, the SEC had selected ALJ through an in-house hiring process, without seeking consult of the President or officers.

In 2012, investment adviser Ray Lucia promoted a retirement investment strategy called "Buckets of Money" through several seminars. The SEC believed Lucia was offering misleading information in the presentations and charged Lucia and his investment company under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. [2] SEC ALJ Cameron Elliot was assigned the case, and after hearings, ruled against Lucia, fining him US$300,000 and barring him for life from participating in the investment industry. [3] Lucia appealed the case to the SEC, arguing that Elliot's position was considered an "officer of the United States" under the Appointments Clause, and therefore it was required that he be appointed to that position by the President or other officers. Because Elliot had not been appointed but instead hired through an in-house process, Lucia argued that Elliot was not empowered to issue the ruling.

The SEC rejected Lucia's claim that ALJs were officers of the United States; the ALJs used by SEC may issue decisions with significant ramifications for those charged, but the decisions are reviewed by the SEC Commissioners, who are appointed by the President, before they are approved and implemented. To the SEC, ALJs were only employees of the agency, and therefore did not need to be appointed. For this reason, the SEC dismissed Lucia's appeal. [4] [5]

Lucia appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which also aligned with the SEC in that ALJs did not serve as officers of the United States. [6] Upon an en banc hearing within the Court of Appeals, the full ten-member panel was split, forcing them to issue a per curiam decision that maintained the SEC's stance. [7] [8]

Lucia's argument was not the first time the question of ALJ's status had been raised in courts, but in at least two previous cases, the United States courts of appeals had ruled that the question was a matter of administrative review, not a constitutional question. Lucia's case at the SEC led one of the SEC commissioners hearing the case to question whether ALJ must be appointed or not. [9] The case and the election of President Donald Trump, which put more pressure on the use of ALJs in the government made the SEC formally announce on November 20, 2017, that they would be appointed by its five commissioners to align with the Constitution's Appointments Clause and eliminate the constitutionality questions raised by this case. [10]

Supreme Court

Lucia petitioned to the Supreme Court for writ of certiorari in July 2017; his petition presented the question of whether ALJs are officers of the United States and so are subject to the Appointments Clause. The Court granted the petition in January 2018 and set oral argument for April 23, 2018.

During the case's review in lower courts, the United States government had backed the SEC's stance. With the election of Donald Trump as President, the government's stance had changed to favoring the argument that ALJs should be appointed. The SEC had already changed its process of hiring ALJs prior to the Supreme Court decision by requiring appointments to be approved by a vote of the Commission. [11] In its brief to the Supreme Court, the government also held the stance that as ALJs should be appointed and able to be dismissed at the discretion of the President or other delegated officer. [12] The Court did not consider that question during oral hearings and internal debates.

Decision

The Court announced judgment in favor of Lucia on June 21, 2018, reversing and remanding to the circuit court by 7–2. [13] The decision affirmed Lucia's statement that ALJs are officers of the United States since they are effectively given quasi-judicial executive power and so must be appointed by the President or a delegated officer. [5] The Court ruled that Lucia must have a new hearing before a different, properly-appointed officer from the SEC but otherwise did not comment on any other aspect of the case. [11] The majority opinion was written by Justice Elena Kagan and was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, as well as Justices Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch. [14]

Concurring and dissenting opinions

Justice Thomas also wrote a concurring opinion, joined by Gorsuch. The decision is expected to allow any entity with a pending case before an SEC ALJ to request a new ruling, but the ruling was crafted as to prevent completed cases from being reopened; it is unknown if this case would apply to cases open at other agencies besides the SEC. [13]

Justice Stephen Breyer concurred in part with the judgment and dissented in part, with Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor joining in his dissent, which agreed that the appointment of ALJs by SEC staff, rather than the commissioners themselves, was illegal. [15] That was because of a violation of the Administrative Procedure Act [16] [ original research? ] and so it was unnecessary to address the constitutional question. [17] [ original research? ] In addition, Breyer argued that it was problematic to determine the "inferior Officer" status of ALJs without first deciding the "pre-existing Free Enterprise Fund [18] question— namely, what effect that holding would have on the statutory 'for cause' removal protections that Congress provided for administrative law judges." [19] [ original research? ] Finally, Breyer disagreed with the need for a hearing before a different ALJ, as it is not clear that the Constitution requires a hearing before a different "Officer" after an Appointments Clause violation. [20] [ original research? ]

Sotomayor also wrote a dissenting opinion, joined by Ginsburg, which stated that ALJs should not be treated as officers as their judgments are not treated as final and binding. [13]

Later developments

In 2023, the Supreme Court granted the case SEC v. Jarkesy which further challenged the constitutionality of the SEC based on the claim that the use of ALJs instead of jury trials violated the Seventh Amendment. While SEC v. Jarkesy was decided in June 2024, with the majority opinion stating that those accused of civil violations by the SEC or similar agencies are entitled to a jury trial rather than an agency tribunal, the court did not rule on the constitutionality of the SEC itself. [21]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Stephen Breyer</span> US Supreme Court justice from 1994 to 2022 (born 1938)

Stephen Gerald Breyer is an American lawyer and jurist who served as an associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court from 1994 until his retirement in 2022. He was nominated by President Bill Clinton, and replaced retiring justice Harry Blackmun. Breyer was generally associated with the liberal wing of the Court. He is now the Byrne Professor of Administrative Law and Process at Harvard Law School.

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.

The Appointments Clause of the United States Constitution empowers the President of the United States to nominate and, with the advice and consent (confirmation) of the United States Senate, appoint public officials. Although the Senate must confirm certain principal officers, Congress may by law invest the appointment of "inferior" officers to the President alone, or to courts of law or heads of departments.

Stop the Beach Renourishment v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, 560 U.S. 702 (2010), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Florida Supreme Court did not effect an unconstitutional taking of littoral property owners' rights to future accretions and to contact the water by upholding Florida's beach renourishment program.

Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, 561 U.S. 477 (2010), was a 5–4 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that laws enabling inferior officers of the United States to be insulated from the Presidential removal authority with two levels of "for cause" removal violated Article Two of the United States Constitution.

National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519 (2012), is a landmark United States Supreme Court decision in which the Court upheld Congress's power to enact most provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), commonly called Obamacare, and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act (HCERA), including a requirement for most Americans to pay a penalty for forgoing health insurance by 2014. The Acts represented a major set of changes to the American health care system that had been the subject of highly contentious debate, largely divided on political party lines.

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) is an administrative law body of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) which decides issues of patentability. It was formed on September 16, 2012, as one part of the America Invents Act. Prior to its formation, the main judicial body in the USPTO was the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI).

Kerry v. Din, 576 U.S. 86 (2015), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court analyzed whether there is a constitutional right to live in the United States with one's spouse and whether procedural due process requires consular officials to give notice of reasons for denying a visa application. In Justice Anthony Kennedy's concurring opinion, the controlling opinion in this case, he wrote that notice requirements “[do] not apply when, as in this case, a visa application is denied due to terrorism or national security concerns.” Because the consular officials satisfied notice requirements, there was no need for the Court to address the constitutional question about the right to live with one's spouse.

Davis v. Ayala, 576 U.S. 257 (2015), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States upheld a death sentence of a Hispanic defendant despite the fact that all Blacks and Hispanics were rejected from the jury during the defendant's trial. The case involved a habeas corpus petition submitted by Hector Ayala, who was arrested and tried in the late 1980s for the alleged murder of three individuals during an attempted robbery of an automobile body shop in San Diego, California in April 1985. At trial, the prosecution used peremptory challenges to strike all Black and Hispanic jurors who were available for jury service. The trial court judge allowed the prosecution to explain the basis for the peremptory challenges outside the presence of Ayala's counsel, "so as not to disclose trial strategy". Ayala was ultimately sentenced to death, but he filed several appeals challenging the constitutionality of the trial court's decision to exclude his counsel from the hearings.

Trump v. Hawaii, No. 17-965, 585 U.S. ___ (2018), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case involving Presidential Proclamation 9645 signed by President Donald Trump, which restricted travel into the United States by people from several nations, or by refugees without valid travel documents. Hawaii and several other states and groups challenged the Proclamation and two predecessor executive orders also issued by Trump on statutory and constitutional grounds. Citing a variety of statements by Trump and administration officials, they argued that the proclamation and its predecessor orders were motivated by anti-Muslim animus.

National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra, 585 U.S. 755 (2018), was a case before the Supreme Court of the United States addressing the constitutionality of California's FACT Act, which mandated that crisis pregnancy centers provide certain disclosures about state services. The law required that licensed centers post visible notices that other options for pregnancy, including abortion, are available from state-sponsored clinics. It also mandated that unlicensed centers post notice of their unlicensed status. The centers, typically run by Christian non-profit groups, challenged the act on the basis that it violated their free speech. After prior reviews in lower courts, the case was brought to the Supreme Court, asking "Whether the disclosures required by the California Reproductive FACT Act violate the protections set forth in the free speech clause of the First Amendment, applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment."

Sessions v. Dimaya, 584 U.S. 148 (2018), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that 18 U.S.C. § 16(b), a statute defining certain "aggravated felonies" for immigration purposes, is unconstitutionally vague. The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) classifies some categories of crimes as "aggravated felonies", and immigrants convicted of those crimes, including those legally present in the United States, are almost certain to be deported. Those categories include "crimes of violence", which are defined by the "elements clause" and the "residual clause". The Court struck down the "residual clause", which classified every felony that, "by its nature, involves a substantial risk" of "physical force against the person or property" as an aggravated felony.

Mitchell v. Wisconsin, 588 U.S. ___ (2019), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that "when a driver is unconscious and cannot be given a breath test, the exigent-circumstances doctrine generally permits a blood test without a warrant."

Lorenzo v. Securities and Exchange Commission, 587 U.S. ___ (2019), was a United States Supreme Court case from the October 2018 term.

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.

California v. Texas, 593 U.S. 659 (2021), was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the constitutionality of the 2010 Affordable Care Act (ACA), colloquially known as Obamacare. It was the third such challenge to the ACA seen by the Supreme Court since its enactment. The case in California followed after the enactment of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 and the change to the tax penalty amount for Americans without required insurance that reduced the "individual mandate" to zero, effective for months after December 31, 2018. The District Court of the Northern District of Texas concluded that this individual mandate was a critical provision of the ACA and that, with a penalty amount equal to zero, some or all of the ACA was potentially unconstitutional as an improper use of Congress's taxation powers.

Financial Oversight and Management Bd. for Puerto Rico v. Aurelius Investment, LLC, 590 U.S. ___ (2020), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that appointments to the Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico are not subject to the restrictions in the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The Court held that all officers of the United States are subject to the Appointments Clause even if their duties relate to Puerto Rico. However, the power they exercise must be primarily federal in nature for the Clause to apply. If the officer exercises powers primarily of a local nature, even if created by federal law, then the officer is not "of the United States" and is exempt from compliance with the Clause. As members of the Board are primarily concerned with the governance of Puerto Rico, even though their decisions have potentially nationwide consequences, their powers are primarily local in nature and need not be appointed in compliance with the Clause.

United States v. Arthrex, Inc., 594 U.S. ___ (2021), was a United States Supreme Court case related to the Appointments Clause of the United States Constitution as it related to patent judges on the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). In a complex decision, the Court ruled that these judges were considered "primary officers" under the Appointments Clause, normally subject to appointment through the US President and the US Senate, but to remedy the matter, the Court ruled that the constitutional issue is resolved by allowing the PTAB decisions to be subject to review by the appropriately-appointed Director of the Patent Office.

Axon Enterprise, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission, 598 U.S. 175 (2023), was a United States Supreme Court case related to administrative law.

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.

References

  1. ↑ Lucia v. SEC ,No. 17-130 , 585 U.S. ___(2018).
  2. ↑ "SEC Investigating Radio And TV Personality Ray Lucia". KPBS . September 5, 2012. Retrieved June 21, 2018.
  3. ↑ Hunnicutt, Trevor (July 9, 2013). "U.S. SEC fines, bars 'Buckets of Money' radio host for fraud". Reuters . Retrieved June 21, 2018.
  4. ↑ Bauder, Don (September 7, 2015). "SEC kicks Ray Lucia's "Buckets of Money" ploy". San Diego Reader . Retrieved June 21, 2018.
  5. 1 2 Michaels, Dave; Kendall, Brent (June 21, 2018). "High Court Rules Appointments Process for SEC Judges Violated Constitution". The Wall Street Journal . Retrieved June 21, 2018.
  6. ↑ Raymond J. Lucia Cos. v. SEC, 832F.3d277 ( D.C. Cir. 2016).
  7. ↑ Raymond J. Lucia Cos. v. SEC, 868F.3d1021 ( D.C. Cir. 2017).
  8. ↑ Lynch, Sarah (June 26, 2017). "SEC wins latest round over how its judges are appointed". Reuters . Retrieved June 21, 2018.
  9. ↑ Henning, Peter (October 5, 2015). "Constitutional Challenges to S.E.C.'s Use of In-House Judges". The New York Times . Retrieved June 21, 2018.
  10. ↑ Chung, Andrew (January 12, 2018). "U.S. Supreme Court takes up challenge to SEC in-house judges". Reuters . Retrieved June 21, 2018.
  11. 1 2 "Supreme Court sides with 'Buckets of Money' financier". Associated Press. June 21, 2018. Retrieved June 21, 2018.
  12. ↑ Newkirk, Margaret; Storh, Greg (April 20, 2018). "Trump's War on 'Deep State' Judges". Bloomberg L.P. Retrieved June 21, 2018.
  13. 1 2 3 Liptak, Adam (June 21, 2018). "S.E.C. Judges Were Appointed Unlawfully, Justices Rule". The New York Times . Retrieved June 23, 2018.
  14. ↑ Note, The Supreme Court, 2017 Term — Leading Cases , 132 Harv. L. Rev. 287(2018).
  15. ↑ Jennifer L. Mascott, “Officers” in the Supreme Court: Lucia v. SEC , 2017-2018 Cato Sup. Ct. Rev. 305(2018).
  16. ↑ Lucia, 585 U.S. at ___ (Breyer, J., dissenting)(slip op. at 2).
  17. ↑ Lucia, 585 U.S. at ___ (Breyer, J., dissenting)(slip op. at 3).
  18. ↑ Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Bd. , 561 U.S. 477 (2010).
  19. ↑ Lucia, 585 U.S. at ___ (Breyer, J., dissenting)(slip op. at 12).
  20. ↑ Lucia, 585 U.S. at ___ (Breyer, J., dissenting)(slip op. at 14).
  21. ↑ Mann, Ronald (June 27, 2024). "Justices limit major SEC tool to penalize fraud". SCOTUSBlog . Retrieved June 28, 2024.

Further reading

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.