Supreme Court Takes Up Dispute Over SEC Judges
The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday granted review in a case that could imperil thousands of commission proceedings and affect the status of administrative law judges in other federal agencies.
January 12, 2018 at 03:13 PM
3 minute read
SEC headquarters in Washington. Credit: Diego M. Radzinschi
The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday agreed to rule on the constitutional status of Securities and Exchange Commission administrative law judges, granting review in a case that could affect thousands of commission proceedings.
Lucia v. SEC presents an issue that has created a sharp circuit split, making it a likely candidate for Supreme Court review. Several related cases are before appeals courts, awaiting high court action. The court's ruling could also affect administrative law judges in other federal agencies.
The SEC dispute, closely watched by white-collar lawyers, was among 12 cases that the justices agreed to review. Among the other cases, the justices will decide whether online retailers must pay state sales taxes even if they have no physical presence in the state and will consider challenges by Texas to lower court rulings that struck down its redistricting plans.
In Lucia, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled in August 2016 that administrative law judges are SEC employees, not constitutional officers who must be hired by the president, a court or a department head, rather than by internal staff of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, as had been the agency's practice.
However, ruling four months later in SEC v. Bandimere, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit said that the SEC judges are “inferior officers” under the Constitution.
The disagreement escalated in November, when U.S. Solicitor General Noel Francisco said in a brief in the Lucia case that the Trump administration would no longer defend the D.C Circuit ruling. The SEC then moved immediately to “ratify” the appointments of its five in-house judges in its capacity as a department head.
Francisco urged the court to grant review in Lucia, also suggesting that the justices appoint an outside lawyer to defend the D.C. Circuit decision.
Though the agency sought certiorari in Bandimere, the court's order list on Friday did not include that case, suggesting that it may be put on hold while the justices consider Lucia, in some ways a cleaner appeal.
A complicating factor in the Bandimere case, first raised in the government's petition, 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.”
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 AllDC Judge, Applying 'Loper Bright,' Dismisses Complaint in Medicare Drug-Classification Dispute
4 minute readSupreme Court Hearing on Facebook's Alleged Nondisclosure Yields 'Freakish' Hypotheticals
'Even Playing Field?' Wiley Rein Intervenes in Federal Election Campaign Spending Row
3 minute readEnd of an (Chevron) Era: DC Circuit Tackles Challenge to Fishing Monitor Rule, Again
Trending Stories
- 1The Importance of Plaintiffs Not Letting Defendants Dictate Settlement Tax Strategies
- 2A New State Law Is a Positive Step Forward for Judicial Security in Pennsylvania—But More Action Is Needed
- 3Does the FAAAA Preempt State Negligence Claims Against Freight Brokers?
- 4People in the News—Nov. 14, 2024—Cummins, McNees
- 5County Reps: Appeal Likely Following State Court's Sales Tax Ruling for Retail Marijuana
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