Administrative law judges in securities disputes
🔷 Administrative Law Judges in Securities Disputes
1. Role of ALJs in Securities Disputes
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) uses ALJs to adjudicate enforcement actions and disputes involving securities laws.
ALJs conduct hearings, take evidence, rule on motions, and issue initial decisions.
ALJ decisions can be reviewed de novo by the SEC Commissioners.
ALJs help streamline the enforcement process, providing an impartial forum for contested cases.
2. Procedural Framework
Securities disputes involving administrative enforcement fall under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
ALJs operate under the SEC’s Rules of Practice and comply with the Due Process Clause.
Key questions arise about ALJ impartiality, appointment, and the scope of their authority.
🔷 Key Case Law with Detailed Explanation
✅ 1. SEC v. Chenery Corp., 318 U.S. 80 (1943)
Facts: Early case discussing administrative adjudication.
Issue: The SEC’s power to make decisions through administrative processes.
Holding: The Supreme Court upheld the SEC’s authority to issue decisions after hearings before ALJs.
Significance: Established the legitimacy of administrative adjudication in securities enforcement.
✅ 2. Lucia v. SEC, 585 U.S. ___ (2018)
Facts: Challenge to the constitutionality of SEC ALJs’ appointments.
Issue: Whether SEC ALJs are “Officers of the United States” subject to the Appointments Clause.
Holding: The Supreme Court held SEC ALJs are officers and must be appointed according to the Appointments Clause.
Significance: Requires proper appointment of ALJs to ensure constitutional validity of proceedings.
✅ 3. Morrison v. SEC, 561 F.3d 548 (D.C. Cir. 2009)
Facts: Respondent challenged the ALJ’s jurisdiction and process in an SEC enforcement action.
Issue: Whether ALJ had authority and whether procedures met due process standards.
Holding: The court affirmed ALJ authority and found that SEC’s process satisfied due process.
Significance: Validated ALJs’ jurisdiction and procedural fairness in securities cases.
✅ 4. Jarkesy v. SEC, 34 F.4th 446 (5th Cir. 2022)
Facts: Challenged SEC ALJ’s constitutionality and the agency’s administrative enforcement process.
Issue: Raised Appointments Clause and Seventh Amendment jury trial rights.
Holding: The Fifth Circuit ruled SEC ALJs unconstitutional due to appointment issues and raised serious constitutional concerns about administrative enforcement without jury trials.
Significance: Created tension around SEC’s use of ALJs, prompting calls for reform.
✅ 5. Securities and Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corporation, 332 U.S. 194 (1947) (Chenery II)
Facts: The SEC’s administrative action was challenged for its reasoning.
Issue: Judicial review of agency decision-making after administrative hearings.
Holding: Courts must uphold agency decisions on the grounds the agency actually relied on.
Significance: Establishes limits of judicial review of ALJ decisions and agency rationale in securities cases.
🔷 Summary of Doctrinal Themes
| Issue | Explanation | Case Example |
|---|---|---|
| Authority of ALJs | ALJs have power to adjudicate securities enforcement | SEC v. Chenery Corp. (1943) |
| Appointments Clause | ALJs must be properly appointed as officers | Lucia v. SEC (2018) |
| Due Process | ALJ hearings must satisfy procedural fairness | Morrison v. SEC (2009) |
| Constitutional Challenges | ALJ’s constitutionality and administrative enforcement questioned | Jarkesy v. SEC (2022) |
| Judicial Review Scope | Courts defer to agency rationale underlying ALJ decisions | SEC v. Chenery Corp. (1947) |
🔷 Conclusion
Administrative Law Judges play a critical role in securities dispute adjudication, ensuring fair, efficient hearings before the SEC. While courts generally uphold ALJ authority and procedures, constitutional questions about appointment and due process have arisen, notably in recent cases like Lucia and Jarkesy, signaling evolving challenges in administrative enforcement.
RELATED Blog
0 comments