SEC v. Jarkesy

Last updated
SEC v. Jarkesy
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued November 29, 2023
Decided June 27, 2024
Full case nameSecurities 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;
  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 non-delegation doctrine;
  3. Whether Congress violated Article II by granting for-cause removal protection to administrative law judges in agencies whose heads enjoy for-cause removal protection.
Holding
When the SEC seeks civil penalties against a defendant for securities fraud, the Seventh Amendment entitles the defendant to a jury trial.
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
MajorityRoberts, joined by Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett
ConcurrenceGorsuch, joined by Thomas
DissentSotomayor, joined by Kagan, Jackson
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. VII; Securities Act of 1933; Securities Exchange Act of 1934; Investment Advisers Act of 1940

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy (Docket No. 22-859) [1] 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.[ citation needed ] [2] [3]

Contents

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; [4] [5] 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 [6] [5] —no intelligible principle to the SEC. Third, the two layers of for-cause removal protections of ALJs violated Article II's Take Care Clause. [7] [8] [5]

The United States Supreme Court issued its decision in June 2024, and in a 6-3 opinion, ruled that those charged with civil penalties by the SEC have the right to a jury trial, under the Seventh Amendment, but did not consider the other questions raised.

Background

Prior [9] to the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, [10] only registered entities such as broker-dealers or licensed investment advisers were subject to the Investment Advisers Act's administrative enforcement provisions. In response to the Great Recession, [11] Congress purported to empower [12] the SEC to impose harsh civil penalties [13] against any [9] private citizen through its own administrative adjudications with only limited, after-the-fact review by a federal court of appeals. [14] Dodd-Frank effectively bestowed [15] to the SEC "coextensive" authority with federal court to impose civil penalties. [16] [9] [12]

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. [17] In part due the Great Recession, 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. [18] 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. [18] The SEC initiated the enforcement action on March 22, 2013, with its ALJ. [17] [19] 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. [20]

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 [21] and equal protection rights, [22] that Dodd-Frank violated the Non-delegation Doctrine, [21] and that the ALJs violate the Appointments Clause. [21] On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in 2015 applied Thunder Basin Coal Co. v. Reich's [23] implied jurisdictional preclusion of collateral lawsuits to the SEC's statutory structure, holding [24] 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. [25] The D.C. Circuit did not address the merits of the constitutional objections [26] 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 would be available. [27] [22] [21] [26]

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. [25] As did the ALJ, the commission also rejected each of Jarkesy's constitutional challenges. Jarkesy appealed to the Fifth Circuit. [28] [18]

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 [29] 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. [30] [31] 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. [30]

Fifth Circuit

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: [25]

Judge Andy Oldham joined Judge Elrod in the majority. Senior Judge W. Eugene Davis dissented. [25]

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] [6]

Supreme Court

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. [7] [43]

Majority

Official roberts CJ.jpg
Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court

Chief Justice John Roberts authored the majority opinion on June 27, 2024, joined by Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett. [44] [45] In his opinion, Roberts vacated the SEC's imposition of civil penalties against Jarkesy determining that the seventh amendment provided for a right to a jury trial as the administrative claims brought by the SEC constituted a "suit at common law". [46] While acknowledging that the claims brought by the SEC rested upon federal statutes and not forms of common law recognized at the adoption of the seventh amendment Roberts contended that coverage of the right to a jury trial extended to "any statutory claim so long as the law is 'legal in nature.'" [47] As per English common law, A suit may either be a 'suit at common law' or a 'suit in equity', with a 'suit at common law' being "legal in nature" and subsequently implicating the seventh amendment. Monetary relief may be applicable in either a legal or equitable suit and whose suit can be identified based upon the nature of relief. [48] In doing so, Roberts noted that the SEC's imposition of monetary relief penalties as a form of punishment were 'legal in nature' and therefore typical of common law remedies, as only courts of law were able to apply them as punishments, while monetary relief penalties to restore the status quo were instead considered to be an 'equitable form of relief'. [49] [50] Therefore, civil penalties as punishment, such as those imposed by the SEC, were a type of common law remedy enforceable by the courts as they were 'legal in nature' and permitted the right to a jury trial. [51] Roberts would further contend that the right to a jury trial was validated as the nature of the SEC's enforcement action stood in line with private rights which followed the 'traditional actions at common law tried by the courts at Westminster in 1789' and not a public right that would not require a jury trial. [3] In distinguishing the SEC's claims as a private right from a public right, Roberts emphasized past precedent in Granfinanciera, S.A. v. Nordberg , which determined there to be no public exception for a bankruptcy proceeding to recover a fraudulent conveyance in spite of such actions being validated by a statutory reading. [3] [52] In closing his opinion, Roberts noted that congressional assignment of action could not supersede substance of the action itself, or it would "[permit the risk for] Congress to siphon this action away from an Article III court". [53]

Dissent

Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote the dissent joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Sotomayor called the majority decision "a devastating blow to the manner in which our government functions", as the majority did not apply the long-standing public rights doctrine of Atlas Roofing Co. v. OSHRC (1977). When Congress creates a public right enforced by the federal government, it can "assign the matter for decision to an agency without a jury, consistent with the Seventh Amendment." The majority's ruling, Sotomayor argued, would create confusion around how public and private rights should be handled. [3]

Impact

At the end of March 2022, the SEC only had seven pending administrative enforcement actions in front of its three ALJs. [54] 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. [7] Since Jarkesy, at least three lawsuits have been filed claiming that the United States Department of Labor's administrative proceedings for enforcing anti-discrimination requirements for federal contractors are unconstitutional. [55]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution</span> 1791 amendment regarding right to a jury trial

The Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. This amendment codifies the right to a jury trial in certain civil cases and inhibits courts from overturning a jury's findings of fact.

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.

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.

Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192 (1991), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court reversed the conviction of John L. Cheek, a tax protester, for willful failure to file tax returns and tax evasion, who was convicted again during retrial. The Court held that an actual good-faith belief that one is not violating the tax law, based on a misunderstanding caused by the complexity of the tax law, negates willfulness, even if that belief is irrational or unreasonable. The Court also ruled that an actual belief that the tax law is invalid or unconstitutional is not a good faith belief based on a misunderstanding caused by the complexity of the tax law, and is not a defense.

Reporter's privilege in the United States, is a "reporter's protection under constitutional or statutory law, from being compelled to testify about confidential information or sources." It may be described in the US as the qualified (limited) First Amendment or statutory right many jurisdictions have given to journalists in protecting their confidential sources from discovery.

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Milan Smith</span> American judge (born 1942)

Milan Dale Smith, Jr. is an American attorney and jurist serving as a United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Smith's brother, Gordon H. Smith, was a Republican U.S. Senator from 1997 to 2009. Milan Smith is neither a Republican nor a Democrat, and he considers himself to be a political independent.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Jennifer Walker Elrod</span> American judge (born 1966)

Jennifer Walker Elrod is an American lawyer and jurist serving as the chief United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. She previously served as a state court judge on the 190th District Court of Texas from 2002 to 2007.

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.

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.

United States v. White, 401 U.S. 745 (1971), was a United States Supreme Court decision which held that recording conversations using concealed radio transmitters worn by informants does not violate the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, and thus does not require a warrant.

A citizen's right to a trial by jury is a central feature of the United States Constitution. It is considered a fundamental principle of the American legal system.

Bond v. United States, 564 U.S. 211 (2011), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that individuals, just like states, may have standing to raise Tenth Amendment challenges to a federal law.

Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene's Energy Group, LLC, 584 U.S. ___ (2018), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the inter partes review process granted by Congress to the United States Patent and Trademark Office for challenging the validity of patents, rather than a jury trial, is constitutional and did not violate either Article III of the Constitution nor the Seventh Amendment.

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.

Vega v. Tekoh, 597 U.S. ___ (2022), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held, 6–3, that an officer's failure to read Miranda warnings to a suspect in custody does not alone provide basis for a claim of civil liability under Section 1983 of United States Code. In the case, the Court reviewed its previous holding of Miranda v. Arizona (1966) to determine whether respondent Carlos Vega violated plaintiff Terence Tekoh's constitutional rights by failing to read Tekoh his Miranda rights prior to interrogation. Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the six-justice majority that Tekoh's Fifth Amendment rights were not violated, as Miranda rights are "not themselves rights protected by the Constitution."

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.

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.

Atlas Roofing Company, Inc. v. Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission, 430 U.S. 442 (1977), was a United States Supreme Court decision in administrative law. The decision held that the Seventh Amendment to the US Constitution did not require a jury trial to enforce the civil penalties for violating a federal "public rights" statute, allowing enforcement by an administrative agency.

Granfinanciera, S.A. v. Nordberg, 492 U.S. 33 (1989), is a 1989 United States Supreme Court case concerning the Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution. In a majority opinion by William J. Brennan, Jr., the Court held that the Seventh Amendment guaranteed individuals the right to a jury trial if they are sued by a bankruptcy trustee seeking the recovery of an allegedly fraudulent monetary transfer, provided that those individuals had not previously submitted a claim against the bankruptcy estate. The decision emphasized that a legal action seeking the recovery of money from someone who allegedly defrauded them would have been litigated at law, rather than in a court of equity, in 18th-century England; it therefore concluded that such an action was a "sui[t] at common law" for which the Seventh Amendment required a jury trial. However, the majority also emphasized that this holding only applied if "Congress has not permissibly assigned resolution of the claim to a non-Article III adjudicative body that does not use a jury as factfinder".

References

  1. ↑ Jarkesy v. SEC, No. 20-61007, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 13460 | __ F.4th __ | 2022 WL 1563613, 2022 BL 172464 (5th Cir. May 18, 2022).
  2. ↑ "SEC v. Jarkesy: A Groundbreaking Supreme Court Decision with Significant Implications for Securities Enforcement | Insights | Greenberg Traurig LLP". www.gtlaw.com. Retrieved 2024-11-12.
  3. 1 2 3 4 Mann, Ronald (June 27, 2024). "Justices limit major SEC tool to penalize fraud". SCOTUSBlog . Archived from the original on July 12, 2024. Retrieved June 28, 2024.
  4. ↑ McGill, Kevin (May 20, 2022). "Ruling in securities case could mean limits on regulators". Washington Post.
  5. 1 2 3 4 5 Hill, Jon (May 18, 2022). "5th Circ. Says SEC's In-House Court Is Unconstitutional". Law360.
  6. 1 2 Oral Argument at 27:20, Jarkesy v. SEC, No. 20-61007 (5th Cir. argued October 10, 2021), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZpW81630Ms&t=1627s.
  7. 1 2 3 Godoy, Jody (2022-05-18). "SEC in-house judges violate right to jury trial, appeals court rules". Reuters. Retrieved 2022-05-19.
  8. ↑ "Constitutional Thunder Out of the Fifth Circuit". Wall Street Journal. May 22, 2022. Retrieved May 24, 2022.
  9. 1 2 3 "RECENT LEGISLATION: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW — AGENCY DESIGN — DODD-FRANK ACT CREATES THE CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BU- REAU — Dodd-Frank Act" (PDF). Harvard Law Review. 124:2123: 2125. 2011.
  10. ↑ Pub. Law No. 111-203, § 929P, 124 Stat. 1376, 1862–64 (2010) (codified at 15 U.S.C. §§ 77h-1(g), 78u-2(a)(2), 80a-9(d), and 80b-3(i))
  11. ↑ Atkins, Paul S. (2008). "Evaluating the Mission: A Critical Review of the History and Evolution of the SEC Enforcement Program". Fordham J. Corp. & Fin. L. 13: 367.
  12. 1 2 3 4 Zaring, David (May 2016). "Enforcement Discretion at the SEC" (PDF). Texas Law Review. 94: 1155.
  13. ↑ Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Pub. Law No. 111-203, § 929P(a)
  14. ↑ Platt, Alexander I. (2015). "SEC Administrative Proceedings: Backlash and Reform" (PDF). The Business Lawyer. 71 (Winter 2015–2016).
  15. ↑ Compare Dodd-Frank Act, Pub. L. No. 111-203, § 929P(a), 124 Stat. 1376, 1862 (2010) (amending 15 U.S.C. § 77h-1 to allow SEC to seek monetary penalties in cease and desist actions filed in administrative proceedings); with 15 U.S.C.§§78u-2(a), (b)(1) (2012) (allowing SEC to pursue civil monetary penalties in administrative hearings arising from violations of 1934 Act); and 15 U.S.C. § 77h-1(a) (2006) (allowing for cease and desist orders to be issued by SEC without going to court against any person that is "violating, has violated, or is about to violate" Securities Act of 1933 "after notice and opportunity for hearing" in administrative proceeding).
  16. ↑ Congress wanted to "mak[e] the SEC's authority in administrative penalty proceedings coextensive with its authority to seek penalties in Federal court." H. Rep. No. 111-687, at 78 (2009) (House Report by Rep. Barney Frank for the Committee on Financial Services, discussing "The Investor Protection Act of 2009," H.R. Res. 3817).
  17. 1 2 Goldstein, Matthew (May 18, 2022). "A federal appeals court says the S.E.C.'s use of an in-house judge violates defendants' rights". The New York Times . Retrieved May 19, 2022.
  18. 1 2 3 Loyola, Maria (May 22, 2022). "A Judicial Ruling Challenges the SEC's Illegal Power". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved May 24, 2022.
  19. ↑ John Thomas Capital Mgmt. Grp. LLC, d/b/a Patriot28 LLC, Exchange Act Release No. 70989, 2013 SEC LEXIS 3862 (Dec. 5, 2013). https://www.sec.gov/alj/aljdec/2014/id693cff.pdf
  20. ↑ Ruger, Todd (2023-11-29). "Supreme Court casts doubt on agency enforcement actions without juries". Roll Call. Retrieved 2024-01-05.
  21. 1 2 3 4 Howard, Joanna (2017). "Reforming SEC ALJ Proceedings". University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform. 50 (3): 797–815. doi: 10.36646/mjlr.50.3.reforming . S2CID   54870787.
  22. 1 2 Dvorak, Michael (2015). "Note, SEC Administrative Proceedings and Equal Protection "Class of One" Challenges: Evaluating Concerns About SEC Forum Choices". Columbia Business Law Review. 2015: 1203 – via SSRN.
  23. ↑ 510 U.S. 200 (1994), available at https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/510/200/
  24. ↑ Jarkesy v. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n, 803 F.3d 9 (D.C. Cir. 2015), available at https://casetext.com/case/jarkesy-v-sec-amp-exch-commn
  25. 1 2 3 4 Bennett, Jennifer (May 18, 2022). "SEC In-House Hearing Violates Right to Jury, Fifth Cir. Says". Bloomberg Law . Retrieved May 19, 2022.
  26. 1 2 Feldman, Noah (2015-10-02). "SEC's New Court Powers Aren't Going Away". Bloomberg.com. Retrieved 2022-05-25.
  27. ↑ Glassman, Thomas (2015). "Constitutional Challenges to SEC Administrative Proceedings". Constitutional Challenges to SEC Administrative Proceedings, 16 J. Bus. & Sec. L. 47 (2015). 16: 47.
  28. ↑ Editorial Board (May 22, 2022). "Constitutional Thunder Out of the Fifth Circuit". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved May 24, 2022.
  29. ↑ "Cochran v. SEC: Fifth Circuit Creates Circuit Split by Allowing Prefinal Judicial Review of SEC Enforcement Proceeding". Harvard Law Review. 135: 1963. May 6, 2022.
  30. 1 2 Ho, Soyoung (April 7, 2022). "Critics Press for Reform as SEC Fails to Separate Enforcement and Adjudicatory Functions". Thomson Reuters.
  31. ↑ "Commission Statement Relating to Certain Administrative Adjudications". sec.gov.
  32. 1 2 3 4 5 6 "Constitutional Thunder Out of the Fifth Circuit". The Wall Street Journal. May 22, 2022. Retrieved May 24, 2022.
  33. ↑ Baude, William (2020). "Adjudication Outside Article III". Harvard Law Review. 133: 1511.
  34. ↑ Harrison, John (2019). "Public Rights, Private Privileges, and Article III". Ga. L. Rev. 54: 143.
  35. ↑ Granfinanciera, S.A. v. Nordberg, 492 U.S. 33 (1989), available at https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/492/33/
  36. ↑ Tull v. United States, 481 U.S. 412, 422 (1987) ("A civil penalty was a type of remedy at common law that could only be enforced in courts of law.").
  37. ↑ Bishop, Keith Paul (May 20, 2022). "The Fifth Circuit Sides With Justinian and Blackstone". The National Law Review.
  38. ↑ 3 William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England *42 (explaining the common-law courts’ jurisdiction over "actions on the case which allege any falsity or fraud; all of which savour of a criminal nature, although the action is brought for a civil remedy; and make the defendant liable in strictness to pay a fine to the king, as well as damages to the injured party").
  39. ↑ See, e.g., SEC v. Fowler, 6 F.4th 255, 258–60 (2d Cir. 2021); SEC v. Johnston, 986 F.3d 63, 71 (1st Cir. 2021); SEC v. Life Partners Holdings, Inc., 854 F.3d 765, 772 (5th Cir. 2017); SEC v. Quan, 817 F.3d 583, 587 (8th Cir. 2016); SEC v. Miller, 808 F.3d 623, 626 (2d Cir. 2015); SEC v. Jasper, 678 F.3d 1116, 1119, 1121–22 (9th Cir. 2012); SEC v. Seghers, 298 F. App’x 319, 321 (5th Cir. 2008).
  40. ↑ 492 U.S. 33 (1989).
  41. ↑ Jones, Ryan (2015). "The Fight Over Home Court: An Analysis of the SEC's Increased Use of Administrative Proceedings". SMU L. Rev. 68: 507.
  42. ↑ Godoy, Jody (May 20, 2022). "SEC in-house judges violate right to jury trial, appeals court rules". Reuters.
  43. ↑ Howe, Amy (May 16, 2022). "Justices grant review in two cases that test jurisdiction of district courts". SCOTUSBlog . Retrieved May 24, 2022.
  44. ↑ Quinn, Melissa (June 27, 2024). "Supreme Court strips SEC of key enforcement power to penalize fraud". CBS News . Retrieved January 3, 2025.
  45. ↑ Savage, Charlie; Liptak, Adam (June 27, 2024). "Again Curbing Regulatory Agencies, Supreme Court Rejects S.E.C.'s Tribunals". The New York Times. Archived from the original on July 9, 2024. Retrieved July 12, 2024.
  46. ↑ Shedd, Daniel (September 16, 2024). "SEC v. Jarkesy: Constitutionality ofAdministrative Enforcement Actions". CRS . Retrieved January 3, 2025.
  47. ↑ "U.S. Supreme Court Limits Use of SEC Administrative Courts in Antifraud Actions". Sidley. June 28, 2024. Retrieved January 3, 2025.
  48. ↑ Baker, H. Gregory; Li, Alvin (July 10, 2024). "Supreme Court Decision in SEC v. Jarkesy Limits the SEC's Ability to Seek Civil Penalties". Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler . Retrieved January 3, 2025.
  49. ↑ Meshulam, Deborah; Cloud, Whitney; Guzman, Andrea; Lewis, Jason; Rivero, Alex (July 2, 2024). "SEC v. Jarkesy: Supreme Court eliminates a significant agency enforcement tool – broad implications, key takeaways". DLA Piper . Retrieved January 3, 2025.
  50. ↑ Millhiser, Ian (June 27, 2024). "The Supreme Court just lit a match and tossed it into dozens of federal agencies". Vox . Retrieved January 3, 2025.
  51. ↑ Cohen, Joel; Stark, Tami; Stewart, Ladan; Diouf, Marietou; DeNault, Robert (July 1, 2024). "Supreme Court rules SEC use of in-house tribunals is unconstitutional in potentially far-reaching decision". White & Case . Retrieved January 3, 2025.
  52. ↑ "SEC v. Jarkesy: Why Curtailing the Use of ALJs Will Help SEC Targets". Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney. July 24, 2024. Retrieved January 3, 2025.
  53. ↑ Wilson, Jane Dall; Chau, Sophie; Groshek, Joelle; MacPhail, Michael (June 27, 2024). "Supreme Court Decides SEC v. Jarkesy". Faegre Drinker . Retrieved January 3, 2025.
  54. ↑ Godoy, Jody (May 20, 2022). "Ruling on SEC judges could have broad impact". Reuters.
  55. ↑ Wiessner, Daniel (September 10, 2024). "US Labor Department's in-house anti-bias cases unconstitutional, lawsuit claims". Reuters.
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.