The Supreme Court’s recent arguments in SEC v. Jarkesy indicate a potential weakening of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) power to protect investors, but a far cry from the catastrophic consequences feared from the Fifth Circuit’s decision. The case revolves around the issue of whether defendants in SEC enforcement proceedings are entitled to a jury trial.
Last year, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit made a controversial decision that could have severely undermined the SEC’s authority and jeopardized the functioning of the federal government. However, the recent Supreme Court arguments in SEC v. Jarkesy suggest that the Court is unlikely to follow the Fifth Circuit’s extreme stance. While the Court’s decision may weaken the SEC’s investor protection power, it is unlikely to result in a catastrophic outcome.
The Background of the Jarkesy Case
The Jarkesy case centers around George Jarkesy, a Republican activist and hedge fund manager accused by the SEC of misleading investors and inflating the value of certain holdings to charge higher management fees. An administrative law judge found Jarkesy in violation of federal securities law and ordered him to pay a civil penalty and disgorge illicit gains.
Administrative Law Judges vs. Article III Judges
The crux of the Jarkesy case lies in the SEC’s decision to bring the enforcement action before an administrative law judge instead of a federal district court. Administrative law judges are civil servants appointed through a merit selection process, specializing in specific areas of the law. In contrast, Article III judges are political appointees nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate, serving for life and hearing a wide range of cases.
The Role of Jury Trials and the Seventh Amendment
Oral arguments in Jarkesy focused on whether the SEC’s use of administrative law judges violates the Seventh Amendment’s right to a jury trial. The Supreme Court’s precedent in Atlas Roofing v. OSHA established that the Seventh Amendment does not apply to cases brought by the government in its sovereign capacity to enforce public rights created by statutes. Since Jarkesy was accused of violating federal securities law, the case falls under the government’s sovereign capacity.
The Court’s Stance and Concerns
While the Court’s Republican-appointed majority expressed discomfort with the use of administrative law judges, they also sought a solution that would not completely undermine the government’s ability to resolve cases in administrative forums. Chief Justice John Roberts suggested that power should be shifted from administrative law judges to Article III judges, expressing concerns about the concentration of power within federal agencies.
Potential Implications and Limitations
The likely outcome of the Jarkesy case is that the Court will rule in Jarkesy’s favor, sending the case to an Article III court where he can receive a jury trial. This result would protect the rights of hedge fund managers but may weaken the SEC’s power to protect investors. However, the impact on the federal government’s ability to enforce the law would be relatively minor compared to the Fifth Circuit’s decision.
Conclusion: The Supreme Court’s arguments in SEC v. Jarkesy indicate a potential weakening of the SEC’s power to protect investors and a shift towards jury trials in enforcement actions. While the Court’s Republican-appointed majority expressed concerns about the use of administrative law judges, they also sought to find a balance that would not cripple the federal government’s ability to resolve cases. Ultimately, the outcome of the Jarkesy case is unlikely to result in the catastrophic consequences feared from the Fifth Circuit’s decision.
Leave a Reply