Law Commons^™

The Impossibility Of Corporate Political Ideology: Upholding Sec Climate Disclosures Against Compelled Commercial Speech Challenges, Erin Murphy

Northwestern University Law Review

To address the increasingly dire climate crisis, the SEC will require public companies to reveal their business’s environmental impact to the market through climate disclosures. Businesses and states challenged the required disclosures as compelled, politically motivated speech that risks putting First Amendment doctrine into further jeopardy. In the past five years, the U.S. Supreme Court has demonstrated an increased propensity to hear compelled speech cases and rule in favor of litigants claiming First Amendment protection from disclosing information that they disagree with or believe to be a politically charged topic. Dissenting liberal Justices have decried these practices as “weaponizing the …

Administrative Law Judges And The Erosion Of The Administrative State: Why Jarkesy May Be The Straw That Breaks The Camel's Back, Nicholas D'Addio

Catholic University Law Review

The Trump-era unitary executive movement sought to expand presidential

power and shrink the influence of the administrative state through deregulation.

This movement ripples into the present moment, as Trump’s overhaul of the

federal judiciary installed a comprehensive system to delegitimize

administrative agency action— a system that is certain to endure. The

independence and role of administrative law judges (ALJs) has proven a key

target of the movement. Most recently, in the 2022 case of Jarkesy v. Securities

and Exchange Commission, the Fifth Circuit held that the dual-tiered for-cause

removal protections of SEC ALJs violated the Take Care Clause of Article …

Jarkesy V. Sec: Are Federal Courts Pushing The U.S. Toward The Next Financial Crisis?, Jennifer Hill

Pepperdine Law Review

In the wake of both the Great Depression and the Financial Crisis of 2008, Congress established and expanded the powers of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). As part of this expansion, the SEC in-house administrative proceedings, designed to adjudicate SEC violations before the SEC’s administrative law judges (ALJs), were born. These in-house proceedings have faced multiple constitutional attacks in the past decade. In the most recent iteration of such challenges, Jarkesy v. SEC, the Fifth Circuit held that the SEC’s in-house proceedings were unconstitutional on three grounds: (1) the in-house proceedings deprived petitioners of their constitutional right to jury …

Keeping Up: Walking With Justice Douglas, Charles A. Reich

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Accusers As Adjudicators In Agency Enforcement Proceedings, Andrew N. Vollmer

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Largely because of the Supreme Court’s 1975 decision in Withrow v. Larkin, the accepted view for decades has been that a federal administrative agency does not violate the Due Process Clause by combining the functions of investigating, charging, and then resolving allegations that a person violated the law. Many federal agencies have this structure, such as the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Federal Trade Commission.

In 2016, the Supreme Court decided Williams v. Pennsylvania, a judicial disqualification case that, without addressing administrative agencies, nonetheless raises a substantial question about one aspect of the combination of functions at agencies. …

Creating Mischief: The Tenth Circuit Declares The Sec’S Administrative Law Judges Unconstitutional In Bandimere V. Securities Exchange Commission, Casey M. Olesen

Maine Law Review

Since the passage of the APA, administrative agencies’ use of Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) to preside over hearings has exploded, and now far outpaces the number trials conducted before federal judges. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is one such agency that heavily utilizes ALJs to conduct their hearings. Recently, following an apparent higher percentage of SEC wins before their own ALJs as compared to before federal judges, a new constitutional challenge on the basis of the Appointments Clause has been brought before several circuits; that the SEC’s ALJs are inferior officers of the SEC, not employees, and therefore are …

Reforming Sec Alj Proceedings, Joanna Howard

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

This Note considers the current constitutional challenges to SEC administrative proceedings and suggests process reforms to enhance fairness for respondents. Challenges have developed since the Dodd-Frank Act expanded the SEC’s ability to use administrative proceedings. Arguments that there is a pre-existing flaw in the method of appointing administrative law judges provide the most potential for success. The Tenth Circuit’s December 2016 decision against the SEC in Bandimere has created a split, diverging from the D.C. Circuit’s analysis of that question in Lucia. Resolution by the Supreme Court may be inevitable. Even if the challengers do ultimately succeed, this will …

Lowe V. Sec: Investment Advisors Act Of 1940 Clashes With First Amendment Guarantees Of Free Speech And Press, Stacy P. Thompson

University of Richmond Law Review

In the wake of mounting controversy over whether federal securities laws can withstand first amendment scrutiny, the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari in Lowe v. SEC to consider whether the first amendment prohibits an injunction against publication and distribution of an investment advisory newsletter by an unregistered investment advisor. However, the Court bypassed this constitutional question, and instead adopted a statutory construction of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (the "Act") that excluded Lowe's newsletters as "bonafide financial publications" of general circulation under section 80(b)- 2(a)(11)(D). The majority ruled that the petitioners were not investment advisers, and therefore did …

Recent Developments, Various Editors

Villanova Law Review

No abstract provided.

Constitutional Law-Public Utility Holding Company Act--Validity Of Holding Company "Death Sentence" Clause, John A. Huston

Michigan Law Review

Petitioner was the topmost holding company in a public utility holding company system which included eighty subsidiaries and served three million customers in seventeen states. By provision of section 11 (b) (1) of the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935, the Securities and Exchange Commission was empowered to limit the operations of a holding company registered with it under the act to "a single integrated public utility system." Acting under this authority, the commission ordered petitioner, a registered company, to divest itself of all its subsidiary holdings excepting certain interests regarded by the commission as a single integrated system …