Yikes SEC v Jarkesy is out. Court says 6-3 on party lines there needs to be a whole jury trial to impose civil penalties for securities fraud
I covered oral argument for Balls & Strikes last year to explain why thats not great
ballsandstrikes.org/scotus/sec-v...www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23p...
Please forgive my ignorance and naivete:
How could Congress rectify this?
Could Congress pass a law that says regulators could try the case in their own administrative courts, like a 3 judge SEC court?
I know "My Sweet Summer Child"
this was decided on constitutional grounds, so a statute can't "fix" it. what Congress *could* do is set up a bunch of new Article III courts/judges to specifically hear administrative cases, but the likelihood of that happening with this congress is close to nil.
one constitutional remedy is also for congress to tell scotus to go fuck themselves and ignore the ruling ("what are you going to do, enforce it?"), or to add more judges to scotus.
I agree with expanding scotus. As well as the number of federal judges in general. And now, it seems, a whole series of administrative couts
So regulatory agencies can enforce their rulings
Does it only relate to securities fraud? Can the SEC still impose fines for anything else w/o a jury trial for example an RIA not following requirements around archiving or cybersecurity?
The ruling could also mean that people could request jury trials for speeding tickets. Which leave the government with top options: ditch civil fines if someone asks for a jury trial, or nail them to the wall if fees and costs if they request one and lose.
