Right-Wing Justices Train Their Anti-Agency Ire On Big Bad Financial Regulator

Justice Gorsuch, Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito. TPM Illustration/Getty Images.
Start your day with TPM.
Sign up for the Morning Memo newsletter

The right-wing Supreme Court justices occasionally tipped into outright hostility Wednesday as they pressed a government lawyer with questions and hypotheticals about stripping the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) of some of its enforcement discretion. 

“Are you saying I MISREAD IT, Mr. Fletcher?!” Justice Neil Gorsuch spat while he and the Department of Justice’s Brian Fletcher sparred over relevant case law. 

The central question of the case is whether the SEC can continue to choose where it adjudicates certain cases — in its own administrative proceedings or in federal courts — without violating the regulated person’s Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial. 

Congress explicitly gave the SEC the right to decide the venue, but didn’t detail how it should choose. Granting the agency that small discretionary power was enough for the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals to cry nondelegation — the right-wing notion that Congress can delegate none of its legislative responsibilities to agencies — sending the case up to the Supreme Court on appeal.

While the justices at Wednesday’s oral arguments in SEC v. Jarkesy didn’t touch on nondelegation explicitly, they had a lot to say about the agency supposedly overstepping its bounds and trampling on the rights of the common man. That anti-administrative posture, habitual for this court, strikes an especially discordant note given that the SEC was established and strengthened amid times of economic catastrophe driven by financial institutions’ malpractice.

“The extent of impact of government agencies on daily life today is enormously more significant than it was 50 years ago,” Chief Justice John Roberts fretted. “Should that be a concern for us or a consideration when we’re trying to consider what power the government has to take away the jury trial right?” 

The justices used their colloquies with the lawyers to shoot back and forth at each other over the fundamental issue of agency power, which the right-wing legal world has long opposed in the quest to weaken regulation. 

“With the Chief Justice making the point that it’s been 50 years and things have changed and that administrative agencies are more powerful, well so too in those 100 years, our problems have only gotten more complicated and difficult,” Justice Elena Kagan responded, about 20 minutes later. “It’s usually Congress that decides how to solve those problems and whether administrative agencies with the kind of expertise that they have are the appropriate way to solve those problems, not this court…”

Not content to let the point lie, Gorsuch — whose mother, a former Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administrator, famously slashed the agency’s budget by 22 percent and bragged that she’d cut the spine of a book of water regulations from six inches to half an inch — returned to the argument soon after. 

“We all agree Congress has a lot more problems on its plate today than it did 100 years ago or even 50 years ago, but doesn’t mean that the constraints of the Constitution somehow evaporate, do they?” he said.  

While many of the conservatives focused on those regulated by the SEC potentially being stripped of their Seventh Amendment rights, the DOJ’s Fletcher urgently tried to impress upon them that upending the SEC’s adjudication system would have far-reaching consequences. 

As experts told TPM last May when the 5th Circuit handed down its ruling, there is good-faith squeamishness about agencies serving as “judge, jury and executioner” in these in-house adjudications. But there are benefits too: There’s a specialist judge to hear the often technical questions, they provide consistency across the decisions and they avoid flooding the federal judiciary with a tranche of new cases. 

And as Fletcher emphasized, the Supreme Court’s decision will touch agencies beyond the SEC.

“To bring all of those cases that are now proceeding administratively into the courts would be a huge imposition on the courts,” Fletcher said, responding to Justice Brett Kavanaugh raising the concern. 

“We very quickly got to two dozen agencies that have the authority to impose penalties in administrative proceedings now,” he added. “I don’t want you to think that it’s just about the SEC and it can just go to court, because it really would have wide repercussions. EPA, Agriculture, it’s really all over.” 

Cases centered on agency power will be a hallmark of this Supreme Court term, with one upcoming that will ask the court to overturn Chevron deference, a decades-old bedrock of agency authority. The war on the administrative state has intensified as the Supreme Court has become more conservative, with agencies from the EPA to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) taking hits. 

In underscoring the importance of the SEC, Kagan traced the history of financial catastrophes that resulted in tougher securities legislation. 

“Is Congress’ judgment after the Depression, after the savings and loan crisis, after the Great Recession — is Congress’ judgment that more powers were needed within an administrative agency entitled to no respect?” she asked incredulously.

Latest News

Notable Replies

  1. Lose us in the minutiae, like the SEC has been financed adequately in the last 20 years. Balls.

  2. “Honest businessmen should be protected from the unscrupulous consumer!” – Gov. Lester Maddox

  3. Show in the Constitution where it says the words “Securities and Exchange Commission!” /s

    I must say how reassuring it was that during the confirmation hearings for Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Thomas (and the rest) that they had absolutely ”no preset agenda” for the decisions that they would make as SCOTUS justices. /ss

  4. “Right-Wing Justices Train Their Anti-Agency Ire On Big Bad Financial Regulator“

    If this ever gets made into a movie, a fitting name might be The Plutocracy Strikes Back.

  5. Humans will be humans. Deception, a basic evolutionary character promoting survival of species, has resulted in overpopulation and thus environmental degradation, mass extinctions and earthly weather destined to devastate human as well as all other life.

    A handful of unfettered billionaires now buy and corrupt power for their personal survival advantage by destroying democratic institutions aimed at protecting everyone and everything else. It’s cheap considering the eventual prize of owning the Earth when 99 percent of humans are gone.

    Will we humans in the majority learn how to work together and reform our system of government to balance all of the factors involved? Not if the corrupted high judiciary as currently constituted is not superceded by intelligence sufficient to meld good science with rational, fair bureaucracy.

    The current state of insanity brought in by the “information age” on crack for profit sure won’t allow it. Repulsing the current fascist spasm may not come soon enough, but we better goddamn well try.

Continue the discussion at forums.talkingpointsmemo.com

50 more replies


Avatar for pluckyinky Avatar for ealleniii Avatar for josephebacon Avatar for dont Avatar for arrendis Avatar for ronbyers Avatar for mrf Avatar for fiftygigs Avatar for gajake Avatar for noonm Avatar for charlie6 Avatar for coimmigrant Avatar for stellermeller Avatar for dominic Avatar for karlwlewis Avatar for bcgister Avatar for kleinschneider Avatar for rascal_crone Avatar for staggerlee Avatar for aftermath Avatar for communistagronomist Avatar for enceladus Avatar for john_adams Avatar for doncoolidge

Continue Discussion
Masthead Masthead
Founder & Editor-in-Chief:
Executive Editor:
Managing Editor:
Associate Editor:
Editor at Large:
General Counsel:
Head of Product:
Director of Technology:
Associate Publisher:
Front End Developer:
Senior Designer: