June 27, 2024
Securities & Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy, No. 22-859 – Decided June 27, 2024
Today, the Supreme Court held 6-3 that the Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution requires the SEC to sue in federal court, not in the agency’s in-house court, when the SEC seeks civil penalties for fraud.
“[T]he Government has created claims whose causes of action are modeled on common law fraud and that provide a type of remedy available only in law courts. This is a common law suit in all but name. And such suits typically must be adjudicated in Article III courts.”
Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the Court
Background:
In 2013, the SEC brought administrative enforcement proceedings against George Jarkesy and his investment advisor for securities fraud. After an SEC in-house administrative law judge found that Jarkesy committed securities fraud, the SEC ordered Jarkesy to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in civil penalties and disgorgement.
A divided panel of the Fifth Circuit held unconstitutional parts of the SEC’s in-house adjudication process for three independent reasons: (1) The Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial barred the SEC’s use of administrative proceedings to impose civil penalties; (2) Congress unconstitutionally vested the SEC with the unfettered discretion to decide whether to enforce securities laws in an agency adjudication or in federal court; and (3) Congress unconstitutionally insulated SEC administrative law judges from removal by allowing their firing only upon a finding of “good cause” by the Merit Systems Protection Board, whose members themselves are subject to removal only in certain limited circumstances.
Issue:
Can the SEC require defendants in actions for civil penalties to defend themselves before the agency tribunal rather than before a jury in federal court?
Court’s Holding:
No. The Seventh Amendment entitles defendants to a jury trial in federal court for SEC fraud actions seeking civil penalties.
What It Means:
The Court’s opinion is available here.
Gibson Dunn’s lawyers are available to assist in addressing any questions you may have regarding developments at the U.S. Supreme Court. Please feel free to contact the following practice group leaders:
Appellate and Constitutional Law Practice
Thomas H. Dupree Jr. +1 202.955.8547 [email protected] |
Allyson N. Ho +1 214.698.3233 [email protected] |
Julian W. Poon +1 213.229.7758 [email protected] |
Lucas C. Townsend +1 202.887.3731 [email protected] |
Bradley J. Hamburger +1 213.229.7658 [email protected] |
Brad G. Hubbard +1 214.698.3326 [email protected] |
Related Practice: Securities Enforcement
Mark K. Schonfeld +1 212.351.2433 [email protected] |
David Woodcock +1 214.698.3211 [email protected] |
Related Practice: Administrative Law and Regulatory Practice
Eugene Scalia +1 202.955.8210 [email protected] |
Helgi C. Walker +1 202.887.3599 [email protected] |
Stuart F. Delery +1 202.955.8515 [email protected] |
Akiva Shapiro +1 212.351.3830 [email protected] |
Russell Balikian +1 202.955.8535 [email protected] |
Related Practice: Securities Litigation
Reed Brodsky +1 212.351.5334 [email protected] |
Monica K. Loseman +1 303.298.5784 [email protected] |
Brian M. Lutz +1 415.393.8379 [email protected] |
Craig Varnen +1 213.229.7922 [email protected] |
Mary Beth Maloney +1 212.351.2315 [email protected] |
This alert was prepared by associates Elizabeth Kiernan and Jessica Lee.
© 2024 Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP. All rights reserved. For contact and other information, please visit us at www.gibsondunn.com.
Attorney Advertising: These materials were prepared for general informational purposes only based on information available at the time of publication and are not intended as, do not constitute, and should not be relied upon as, legal advice or a legal opinion on any specific facts or circumstances. Gibson Dunn (and its affiliates, attorneys, and employees) shall not have any liability in connection with any use of these materials. The sharing of these materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship with the recipient and should not be relied upon as an alternative for advice from qualified counsel. Please note that facts and circumstances may vary, and prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.