Welcome to Supreme Court Brief. The justices wrap up the term's oral arguments this week—and what a final week! Each of the three argument days presents at least one closely watched challenge. We take a look at the first one up this morning—Lucia v. SEC—which has implications for the thousands of administrative law judges across the federal government. Rod Rosenstein is expected to make his Supreme Court debut, and the justices will issue orders today. We could get decisions tomorrow—stay tuned. Thanks for reading, and we'll be back on Tuesday. We welcome feedback at [email protected] and [email protected].

|

How This 'Buckets of Money' Case Could Touch Trump's Firing Power

Today is a rare three-argument day at the Supreme Court—two in the morning and one in the afternoon, after lunch—and it starts off with Lucia v. Securities and Exchange Commission, one of the most important and oddly positioned cases of the term.

Call it the “Buckets of Money” case—not a reference to the lawyer fees involved, but rather the name of the seminars given by financial adviser Raymond Lucia, attended by more than 50,000 people and approved by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, according to the brief by his lawyer Mark Perry of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission found some of his slides misleading, and referred the case to an administrative law judge who agreed and banished Lucia from being an investment adviser for the rest of his life.

To regain his livelihood and reputation, Lucia challenged the SEC action with a constitutional claim. He asserted that the administrative law judge was appointed in violation of the appointments clause as an employee, rather than as an officer appointed by a president, a court or a department head. The SEC and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled otherwise, setting the stage for Supreme Court review.

These odd twists and turns ensued:

► Both Perry and the U.S. government urged the high court to grant review in Lucia, not SEC v. Bandimere, an appeal of a Tenth Circuit ruling that went against the SEC. Why? Because Justice Neil Gorsuch would likely have to recuse himself in Bandimere, which went up for en banc review while he was a judge on the Tenth Circuit. It is rare for parties for explicitly point out reasons for recusal.

► The United States switched sides, arguing for the first time that SEC administrative judges are in fact officers because they exercise “significant authority pursuant to the laws of the United States.”

► In sync with the new position, the SEC swiftly appointed the judges in a manner called for by the appointments clause. They had previously been hired by commission staff. Other agencies, including the U.S. Labor Department, pointing to the Supreme Court case, also moved to insulate their administrative judges from attack.

► But the commission's action did not moot the case, Perry told the court. Even though the judges were now properly appointed, he said Lucia is still “subject to draconian sanctions—including a lifetime associational bar—resulting from the tainted proceedings below.” The court granted review Jan. 12 and could affect appointees throughout the administrative arena.

► As a result of the switcheroo, the court appointed O'Melveny & Myers partner Anton Metlitsky, a former clerk to Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. to argue the orphaned position that neither of the parties embrace. Perry will argue for Lucia and deputy SG Jeffrey Wall will argue for the government.

► Though the Lucia dispute deals with hiring, U.S. Solicitor General Noel Franciscohas also urged the court to use the case to strengthen presidential power to fire officers, leading some to suggest that he is trying to get the court to pave the way for firing special counsel Robert Mueller. Whether or not the justices steer clear of that issue will be a must-watch aspect of the argument today.

|

Will This Google 'Cy Pres' Settlement End Roberts's Search?

Chief Justice Roberts in 2013 noted ”fundamental concerns” about cy pres settlements—but the justices have passed on two opportunities this term to review challenges to “cy pres” settlements. Will the third time be the charm? The court may let us know this morning.

Ted Frank, director of litigation and the Center for Class Action Fairness at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, is the name appellant in Frank v. Gaos and Google—a challenge to a settlement that only included a provision distributing money to third parties. Frank's petition, filed by Andrew Grossman, a partner at Baker & Hostetler, was on the court's April 20 conference list for the second time since its filing in January.

The petition stems from a class action that claimed Google illegally shared the search queries of its users. A federal district court approved an $8.5 million settlement of which $5.3 million would go to six non-parties devoted to web privacy. No class member would receive a dime. The trial court found that the settlement fund was not distributable to an estimate 129 million Google users. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed.

Frank was one of the objectors to the settlement in the district and appellate courts. He has drawn some supporting amicus briefs in the high court from the conservative Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence and the Center for Individual Rights, the libertarian Cato Institute, and 16 state attorneys general.

The attorneys general, led by Arizona's Mark Brnovich, tell the court they have an interest in protecting their consumers and a responsibility under the Class Action Fairness Act, which gives them a role in the approval process for class action settlements.

“Given the nature of nationwide class action litigation, and the ability of class counsel to forum shop cases, even one circuit applying an under-protective standard to cy pres settlement arrangements will detrimentally affect consumers across the nation and undercut any efforts (by amici or others) to protect consumers from class action settlement abuse,” they argue in urging the justices to provide guidance.

Mayer Brown partner Donald Falk represents Google. He urged the court to deny review, arguing the class action was “especially well-suited” to a cy pres remedy because class members have not alleged any actual harm from the alleged anti-consumer practices.

|

Rod Rosenstein, for the United States. May It Please the Court.

Rod Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general, is scheduled to argue today's sentencing case, a test of what justification judges must offer when they decide against reducing a sentence that's within the guideline range. The case is Chavez-Meza v. United States, arising from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. Justice Neil Gorsuch, who previously sat on the Tenth Circuit, did not participate in granting review of the petition and likely has recused from the argument.

The argument would mark Rosenstein's first in the Supreme Court, and it comes as he faces mounting scrutiny over his management of the special counsel's investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. Questions are swirling in Washington over whether President Trump will fire Rosenstein.

Rosenstein, as the former U.S. attorney for Maryland, argued several federal appeals court cases, including a major privacy case in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. On Monday morning, he will face Todd Coberly of Coberly & Martinez in Santa Fe, New Mexico, counsel to Adaucto Chavez-Meza.

The SG's office recently sent Rosenstein the traditional garb the government's Supreme Court lawyers wear at the court, the Wall Street Journal reported on Sunday. “They actually sent over six pairs of pants so I could choose from them, and then of course there's a vest and a tie,” Rosenstein told the WSJ. He said he took home two pairs “so I could press them a bit because they were wrinkled.”

In Case You Missed It: Is Trump Souring on Gorsuch?

—> The Washington Post reports President Donald Trump complained about Justice Neil Gorsuch's vote against the administration in Sessions v. Dimaya, an immigration case decided April 17.

—> The Supreme Court's “Little Pink House” case, which ignited a national conversation about eminent domain, opened in movie theaters April 20.

—> An Atlanta law firm's fee fight was at the center of Supreme Court arguments April 17 on how to interpret key sections of the federal bankruptcy code.

—> Congress received an update on the federal judiciary's workplace misconductreview.

—> Justice Sotomayor broke her shoulder in a fall at home April 16 but she didn't miss an argument last week.

—> The justices appeared reluctant to overturn a 1992 decision barring states from requiring remote retailers to collect sales taxes.