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. 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:
Possible Gorsuch Recusal Complicates SCOTUS Review of SEC Judges
Gibson Dunn Partner Takes SEC Challenge to SCOTUS
DC Circuit Split Tees Up Supreme Court Review of SEC Judges
SEC In-House Forum Is Constitutionally Uncertain
Jay Clayton, SEC Chair Nominee, Pulled in $7M From Sullivan & Cromwell Last Year
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 AllFTC Sues PepsiCo for Alleged Price Break to Big-Box Retailer, Incurs Holyoak's Wrath
5 minute readSupreme Court Will Hear Religious Parents' Bid to Opt Out of LGBTQ-Themed School Books
Wells Fargo and Bank of America Agree to Pay Combined $60 Million to Settle SEC Probe
Trending Stories
- 1Court of Appeals Provides Comfort to Land Use Litigants Through the Relation Back Doctrine
- 2Amid the Tragedy of the L.A. Fires, a Lesson on the Value of Good Neighbors
- 3Democracy in Focus: New York State Court of Appeals Year in Review
- 4In Vape Case, A Debate Over Forum Shopping
- 5SDNY Criminal Division Deputy Chief Returns to Debevoise
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