Chief Justice Robert, in “About SEC v. Jarkesy, 603 U.S. __ (2024), holding that the Securities and Exchange Commission cannot hear civil fraud claims before its own administrative law judges. Instead, it must try these cases in federal district court, where the Seventh Amendment’s civil right to a jury trial must apply to all “[suits] An action at common law” as distinguished from an action in equity and admiralty.
The Supreme Court’s treatment of the Seventh Amendment today is largely the same as its treatment of the Second Amendment last year. district Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008). It narrowly holds that Congress and the president cannot completely ignore the Seventh Amendment, just as they previously completely ignored the Second Amendment. Heller Decided. At least that’s the case in the civil fraud case filed by the SEC
The chief justice’s opinion was joined by five other justices: Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett. Chief Justice Roberts’ opinion examined the legal sources of originalism, textualism, and doctrine. In the majority opinion, Chief Justice Roberts made the overwhelming argument that the SEC’s fraud case was framed in Seventh Amendment terms “[s]Common law actions” can only be tried by a jury, as opposed to equity or admiralty actions, because historically there has been no right to a jury trial.
The Chief’s view is well supported by previous Supreme Court precedents. The case did not overturn any precedent, although it distinguished Atlas Roofing, Inc. v. Occupational Safety and Health Review Board430 US 442 (1977), a much criticized precedent; atlas roofThe author (Judge White) claims that this decision was overturned by a Supreme Court case in the 1980s, and that the Chief Justice’s opinion expressly did not address this issue.
Justice Gorsuch wrote a very strong and persuasive concurrence, joined by Justice Thomas, emphasizing, Jacques The case involved Article III’s promise of lifelong judges to hear common law suits, and the Seventh Amendment. Justice Gorsuch also noted that the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment was also implicated because the SEC believed that combining legislative, executive, and judicial powers in a single executive agency could violate the separation of powers.
Justice Sotomayor wrote a spirited dissent, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson. She complained that precedent actually favored her, contrary to the chief justice’s opinion. she is very dependent on atlas roof. Justice Sotomayor’s opinion is Jacques The case “involved the government acting in its sovereign capacity to enforce a statutory violation. This makes the right at issue a “public right” that Congress could place outside the scope of Article III even if the new cause of action resembles a common Rights – Legal Claims. She also believes that “Congress has good reasons to establish a program like the SEC. It could yield important benefits, such as greater efficiency and expertise, and transparency compared to jury trials in federal courts.” and sound decision-making as well as uniformity, predictability and greater political accountability.
comprehensive, SEC v. Jarkesy This was the correct and persuasive six-judge majority opinion, which held that, at least in civil fraud actions, the SEC must refer the case to an Article III judge and give the defendants it prosecutes the right to a civil jury trial . It cannot bring such proceedings before its in-house administrative law judge. Jacques So this is an important victory for the rule of law and common sense.
