Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
Articles 1 - 6 of 6
Full-Text Articles in Securities Law
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
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
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 …
Accusers As Adjudicators In Agency Enforcement Proceedings, Andrew N. Vollmer
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. …
Reforming Sec Alj Proceedings, Joanna Howard
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 …
Recent Developments, Various Editors
Constitutional Law-Public Utility Holding Company Act--Validity Of Holding Company "Death Sentence" Clause, John A. Huston
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 …