The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Bad Day in Court for the Administrative State
Fifth Circuit panel finds several constitutional problems with the Securities and Exchange Commission
In Jarkesy v. Securities and Exchange Commission, a divided three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit put a shot across the bow of the administrative state. In an opinion written by Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod, the court ruled against the SEC in a securities fraud enforcement case on several constitutional claims. The full opinion can be found here.
Petitioners raise several constitutional challenges to the SEC enforcement proceedings. We agree with Petitioners that the proceedings suffered from three independent constitutional defects: (1) Petitioners were deprived of their constitutional right to a jury trial; (2) Congress unconstitutionally delegated legislative power to the SEC by failing to provide it with an intelligible principle by which to exercise the delegated power; and (3) statutory removal restrictions on SEC ALJs violate Article II.
A nondelegation ruling against the SEC is a big deal, but the actual argument is somewhat more modest. The claim is that Congress did not articulate an intelligible principle to guide the SEC on whether to bring enforcement actions in Article III courts or through administrative decision-making. Significant, but pretty fixable.
The third constitutional claim is potentially wide-ranging, though also fixable. The court concludes that administrative law judges are officers exercising substantial policy discretion, and thus cannot be regarded as mere inferior officers doubly insulated from presidential removal.
Judge W. Eugene Davis dissented from all three constitutional conclusions.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
That's not a shot across the bow, that's a shot through the bow. Several, in fact.
More legal chaos out of the Fifth Circuit.
We will see how chaotic it turns out to be. If the Supreme Court backs them up it could cause chaos in the SEC's kangaroo courts. But if the Supreme Court reverses the 5th it will be back to business as usual in a short time.
I guess I subscribe to the belief that federal law should apply equally regardless of where you live. If you live in Texas, Louisiana, or Mississippi, your legal rights and the substantive law applicable to you will depend on the whims of a radically activist set of judges, aided and abetted by Alito and a conservative majority content to let the Fifth Circuit experiment with dismantling the rule of law.
You must have accidentally clicked on the wrong site. This site is called reason.com. Not extreme-leftism.com. No one is obligated to humor your bullshit defenses of how bad your side is. On a side note, their evil is partly their fault - you're complicit in it since you support it. What types of measures would be justified to get you guys to stop?
SimonP - since when is requiring compliance with the US Constitution dismantling the rule of law?
The Fifth Circuit needs to be excised. Somehow they've decided to even out-crazy the 9th.
I'm sick of the partisan bullshit in this country.
What's partisan about the SEC?
And if the SEC is partisan shouldn't it be fixed? I don't think there is much controversy that the SEC wields an enormous amount of power, but without the restraints of an Article 3 court. It certainly does seem unfair that the SEC is legislature, prosecutor, judge, and jury over a big segment of our economy. They make the law, decide who broke it, assign guilt, and then inflict punishment, and then they impose a gag order on the whole shebang. Maybe those powers should be pared back just a little.
Are you really that bad at connecting the dots? Your comprehension of my statement is abysmal.
There was not much to comprehend.
A straight-forward and simple statement often can be described in that manner, and yet he still failed to get it right.
Your snark actually demonstrates the absurdity of such a failure.
Not often one sees a court implicitly advocating for jury nullification.
OK, you have to elaborate on that.
A difficulty with the delegation argument would seem to be that enforcement discretion is a classic core executive power that the executive possesses inherently and which does not have to be delegated by Congress. Congress need not, for example, create standards for when to accept a guilty plea and when to go to trial, or when to try on the lesser and when on the greater crime when two statutes with different penalties cover the same conduct.
Why should when to conduct things administratively rather than go to court be different from when to accept into a diversion program, when to accept a plea to a lesser offence, when to throw the full book at people, or any other aspect of executive enforcement discretion?
Conservative judges don't have to think that carefully about the made-up doctrines they use, because they are only used in specific cases to reach desired outcomes.
Isn't the difference about who makes the decision on behalf of whom?
An accused person offered a diversion can refuse; can an accused refuse the administrative approach?
If so, then I'd agree with you. But if they cannot refuse, then it does sound like the judge here is correct.
Right, and it's even worse than that. There's even a US Supreme Court case that says that if prosecutors can choose between two different statutes prohibiting the same conduct, with different sentencing ranges, that prosecutorial discretion does not violate the nondelegation doctrine! The 5th Circuit is basically disobeying a very close to on point SCOTUS case.
Well, this is more than just discretion. If the SEC summons you to one of these tribunals you can't just now show up, and the SEC can issue judgments as a result of the tribunal. They arent exercising discretion then bringing a case.
Certain discretion is invalid. A prosecutor has discretion as to what to charge. The actual sentence at the end of the trial is not within their control, they can only ask.
The difference is that the SEC is exercising not just executive but also legislative and judicial power. The victim of overzealous prosecution in an ordinary criminal case can get a jury trial, as can someone who's denied access to a diversion program.
The SEC's stacked-deck quasi-judicial system cannot be justified by comparing it to prosecutorial discretion. Prosecutors don't determine guilt or make sentencing decisions.
The SEC has been getting away with unconstitutional bullshit for years, for instance forbidding people to comment on any SEC enforcement actions against them.
While it may be appropriate for private settlements to contain an NDA there is no justification for a government agency to require that when someone settles with them they can't comment on the enforcement action or dispute the alleged facts.
Not on topic, exactly.
You really can't find a government interest in the SEC not letting bound parties comment on their settlement?
Is the SEC allowed to correct the record if they lie about it?
There is a government interest, but that doesn't mean they are able to do something which clearly looks like a first amendment violation ... its about degrees of interest right? Forbidding speech about the government is a clear violation of the first amendment, the interest must be strong in that case.
I dont think not wanting to risk temporary embarrassment perhaps is a sufficient interest in this case.
I'm not sure a conditional requirement based on an adjudication is a 1A violation.
But regardless, random gripes about the SEC should not justify the 5th Circuit going off on a frolic that ignores vertical Stare.
Not a big deal
Congress didn't tell SEC when to use ALJ vs a jury trial, and SEC was just making it up.
This made me chuckle a bit:
"The dissenting opinion cannot define a 'public right' without using
the term itself in the definition. That leads to a good bit of question-begging."