SEC Moves to Block Challenges to In-House Judges After DOJ Abandons Earlier Litigation Stance
U.S. securities officials, acting swiftly to conform to the U.S. Justice Department's new position in a pending case in the U.S. Supreme Court, on Thursday moved to foreclose new challenges to the lawfulness of the agency's five administrative law judges. The Justice Department now considers ALJs "officers" rather than mere employees of the agency.
November 30, 2017 at 01:07 PM
5 minute read
U.S. solicitor general's office at Main Justice. Credit: Mike Scarcella/ ALM
U.S. securities officials, acting swiftly to conform to the U.S. Justice Department's new position in a pending case in the U.S. Supreme Court, on Thursday moved to foreclose new challenges to the lawfulness of the agency's five administrative law judges.
U.S. Solicitor General Noel Francisco this week notified the high court that the Justice Department was abandoning its defense of the SEC's hiring process for its in-house judges. Main Justice now considers the commission's administrative judges “officers” rather than mere employees. The new position raised the bar for the hiring and termination of the agency's judges.
The commission on Thursday ratified the appointment of the agency's five administrative law judges. The ratification, the commission said, would “put to rest any claim that administrative proceedings pending before, or presided over by, commission administrative law judges violate the appointments clause” of the Constitution. The five administrative law judges had been hired earlier by agency staff.
The Supreme Court has two cases in front of it that question the lawfulness of the SEC's administrative law judges—one from the D.C. Circuit, Raymond J. Lucia v. SEC, and the other from the Tenth Circuit, SEC v. Bandimere. The justices haven't decided whether to take either case.
In August 2016, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that SEC ALJs are employees not subject to the appointments clause. The full D.C. Circuit deadlocked 5-5 on the request for rehearing en banc, leaving the panel ruling intact. The Tenth Circuit ruled against the agency.
Francisco wrote in the government's filing in Lucia: “In prior stages of this case, the government argued that the commission's ALJs are mere employees rather than 'officers' within the meaning of the appointments clause. Upon further consideration, and in light of the implications for the exercise of executive power under Article II, the government is now of the view that such ALJs are officers because they exercise 'significant authority pursuant to the laws of the United States.'”
Francisco urged the justices to grant review to the Lucia petition, arguing that the constitutional issue “is also extremely important because it affects not merely the commission's enforcement of the federal securities laws, but also the conduct of adversarial administrative proceedings in other agencies within the government.”
While the SEC has five ALJs, the Social Security Administration, for example, has about 1,400.
The Justice Department had argued in several appellate courts and the Supreme Court that SEC administrative law judges were not “inferior officers” under the appointments clause. In its brief Wednesday, the solicitor general said it now agreed with the Lucia challengers and asked the justices to appoint a lawyer to defend the D.C. Circuit ruling.
Raymond J. Lucia is represented in the high court by Mark Perry of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher. Supporting amicus briefs have been filed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Cato Institute, investor Mark Cuban and the Pacific Legal Foundation.
Granting review in Bandimere could be complicated by a possible recusal by Justice Neil Gorsuch who previously sat on the Tenth Circuit. In his Bandimere petition, Francisco suggested the justices might wish to choose Lucia instead 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.”
There are eight cases raising the issue in federal appellate courts and those cases have been held in abeyance pending any action by the Supreme Court, according to the commission.
In its Thursday order, the commission directed its administrative law judges to reconsider the record and all actions taken in any pending case in which no initial decision has been issued yet. Any matters before the commission in which an initial decision was issued by an administrative law judge will be remanded to the judge for reconsideration. The commission said it is expected to remand 105 cases to its ALJs.
Read the SEC's order about ratification below:
Read more:
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
© 2024 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 All'Substantive Deficiencies': Judge Grants Big Law Motion Dismissing Ivy League Price-Fixing Claims
3 minute readAttorneys Ordered to Apologize to South Philadelphia Residents Following 'Scream Test' Experiment
5 minute readWhich 1-Judge Division Districts Have Adopted Anti-Forum Shopping Guidance?
Sean Combs' Defense Counsel Seeks Hearing, Gag Over Alleged Leaks by Government
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Dechert partners Andrew J. Levander, Angela M. Liu and Neil A. Steiner have stepped in to defend Arbor Realty Trust and certain executives in a pending securities class action. The complaint, filed July 31 in New York Eastern District Court by Levi & Korsinsky, contends that the defendants concealed a 'toxic' mobile home portfolio, vastly overstated collateral in regards to the company's loans and failed to disclose an investigation of the company by the FBI. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Pamela K. Chen, is 1:24-cv-05347, Martin v. Arbor Realty Trust, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Arthur G. Jakoby, Ryan Feeney and Maxim M.L. Nowak from Herrick Feinstein have stepped in to defend Charles Dilluvio and Seacor Capital in a pending securities lawsuit. The complaint, filed Sept. 30 in New York Southern District Court by the Securities and Exchange Commission, accuses the defendants of using consulting agreements, attorney opinion letters and other mechanisms to skirt regulations limiting stock sales by affiliate companies and allowing the defendants to unlawfully profit from sales of Enzolytics stock. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Andrew L. Carter Jr., is 1:24-cv-07362, Securities and Exchange Commission v. Zhabilov et al.
Who Got The Work
Clark Hill members Vincent Roskovensky and Kevin B. Watson have entered appearances for Architectural Steel and Associated Products in a pending environmental lawsuit. The complaint, filed Aug. 27 in Pennsylvania Eastern District Court by Brodsky & Smith on behalf of Hung Trinh, accuses the defendant of discharging polluted stormwater from its steel facility without a permit in violation of the Clean Water Act. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Gerald J. Pappert, is 2:24-cv-04490, Trinh v. Architectural Steel And Associated Products, Inc.
Who Got The Work
Michael R. Yellin of Cole Schotz has entered an appearance for S2 d/b/a the Shoe Surgeon, Dominic Chambrone a/k/a Dominic Ciambrone and other defendants in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The case, filed July 15 in New York Southern District Court by DLA Piper on behalf of Nike, seeks to enjoin Ciambrone and the other defendants in their attempts to build an 'entire multifaceted' retail empire through their unauthorized use of Nike’s trademark rights. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald, is 1:24-cv-05307, Nike Inc. v. S2, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Sullivan & Cromwell partner Adam S. Paris has entered an appearance for Orthofix Medical in a pending securities class action arising from a proposed acquisition of SeaSpine by Orthofix. The suit, filed Sept. 6 in California Southern District Court, by Girard Sharp and the Hall Firm, contends that the offering materials and related oral communications contained untrue statements of material fact. According to the complaint, the defendants made a series of misrepresentations about Orthofix’s disclosure controls and internal controls over financial reporting and ethical compliance. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Linda Lopez, is 3:24-cv-01593, O'Hara v. Orthofix Medical Inc. et al.
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