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'New Circumstances': Winston & Strawn Seek Expedited Relief in NASCAR Antitrust Lawsuit
3 minute read5th Circuit Rules Open-Source Code Is Not Property in Tornado Cash Appeal
5 minute readDOJ Asks 5th Circuit to Publish Opinion Upholding Gun Ban for Felon
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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