Possible Gorsuch Recusal Complicates SCOTUS Review of SEC Judges
The U.S. Supreme Court's consideration of cases challenging the constitutional status of SEC administrative law judges has brought recusal issues front and center.
November 15, 2017 at 12:48 PM
5 minute read
The U.S. Supreme Court's handling of key cases challenging the constitutional status of SEC administrative law judges may hinge on the possibility that Justice Neil Gorsuch will recuse in one of the cases.
The two cases—Lucia v. SEC and SEC v. Bandimere—have created a sharp circuit split, ultimately making one or both of them likely candidates for Supreme Court review. In Bandimere, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit ruled that the judges are “inferior officers” under the Constitution and therefore must be hired by the president, a court or a department head—not by internal staff of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, as they are now. But in Lucia, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that administrative law judges are SEC employees, not officers, because their decisions are not final.
The Lucia case has been before the high court since July 21, and Bandimere since Sept. 29. On Tuesday, Solicitor General Noel Francisco asked the court to extend the deadline for his response for the fourth time in the Lucia case. The court granted the request and the response is due Nov. 29. If both cases are considered together, the court might not decide whether to grant certiorari until January.
In the meantime, in light of the Bandimere ruling, the SEC decided to suspend all administrative proceedings in the Tenth Circuit. Several other circuits are considering the same issue.
A complicating factor, first raised in the government's petition in Bandimere, is that Gorsuch was still a judge on the Tenth Circuit when the government sought en banc review of the decision—a request that would have been put forward to all the circuit's judges. The court denied the en banc request in May—after Gorsuch was sworn in as a justice.
Francisco's petition in Bandimere mentioned the Lucia case and said the court “may wish … to consider” the constitutional issue in Lucia, not Bandimere, “because the government's petition for rehearing en banc in this case was filed in the court of appeals while Justice Gorsuch was a member of that court.”
♦ RELATED COVERAGE: Neil Gorsuch Recused in More Than 1,000 Cases as Tenth Circuit Judge
But the lawyer for David Bandimere, who was found guilty of securities fraud by an administrative law judge, dismissed the government's “oblique notation” about the need for Gorsuch to recuse himself in the case. “Justice Gorsuch appears not to have participated in the denial of rehearing,” Mark Fleming, partner at Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, wrote in a brief in opposition. “The government offers no reason to think that Justice Gorsuch would be recused in this case, and we know of none.”
It is very rare for parties to discuss openly whether a justice should recuse in a case, a decision that is viewed as highly personal for each justice. But the timing of the Tenth Circuit's receipt of the request for en banc review appears to make the recusal possible, though Gorsuch has not yet acted on the suggestion.
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher partner Mark Perry, who represents plaintiff Raymond Lucia, also mentioned the “significant possibility” of Gorsuch's recusal in an amicus brief he filed in the Bandimere case. He noted that Gorsuch has recused in two other cases in similar circumstances where a party sought en banc review while he was still in “active regular service” on the Tenth Circuit before he was confirmed to the high court. “The Lucia case, in contrast, presents no potential recusal issues,” Perry wrote.
“The court's institutional interests would best be served by granting certiorari in the case with no possibility of recusal,” Perry continued. “This will ensure that all nine Justices can participate in this important decision, and eliminate any potential for criticism regarding consistent application of (nonpublic) recusal policies.”
In a separate letter to the court, Perry wrote, “the petitions should be distributed on the same schedule and considered together at the same conference.” If the court agrees, given the government's extended deadline in Lucia, the cases may not be considered until January.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllApple Files Appeal to DC Circuit Aiming to Intervene in Google Search Monopoly Case
3 minute readDC Circuit Revives Firefighters' Religious Freedom Litigation in Facial Hair Policy Row
3 minute readDC Judge Chutkan Allows Jenner's $8M Unpaid Legal Fees Lawsuit to Proceed Against Sierra Leone
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Uber Files RICO Suit Against Plaintiff-Side Firms Alleging Fraudulent Injury Claims
- 2The Law Firm Disrupted: Scrutinizing the Elephant More Than the Mouse
- 3Inherent Diminished Value Damages Unavailable to 3rd-Party Claimants, Court Says
- 4Pa. Defense Firm Sued by Client Over Ex-Eagles Player's $43.5M Med Mal Win
- 5Losses Mount at Morris Manning, but Departing Ex-Chair Stays Bullish About His Old Firm's Future
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250