Supreme Court Rules Against SEC Naming of In-House Judges


The US Supreme Court on Thursday said the Securities and Exchange Commission’s election of internal judges who enforce investor protection laws is against a constitutional amendment that allows more presidential control of important affairs in federal agencies.

In a decision of 7-2, the judges said that the SEC, under the supervision of President Donald Trump, who had judicial judges of low-level personnel, violated the powers given to the president by the “constitutional amendments” of the US Constitution. federal publications.

The decision can be echoed by the federal government, which has about 2,000 administrative laws appointed by the agency’s staff, to decide on various issues such as unfair trade practices, veteran aid, and patent infringement, such as judges in the federal judiciary.

The judges were acting in conjunction with Raymond Lucia, a former California based radio server and investment adviser, who had been banned by the SEC administrative jurisdiction for an investment and who had been fined $ 300,000 to make misleading claims in the “Money Chases” retirement welfare strategy.

The resolution signaled the victory of the president of the republic, trying to limit the power of some federal agencies. In November, when Trump’s administration passed, the government reversed its stance that backs the SEC’s previous democratic predecessor, Barack Obama.

The decision taken by Liberal Justice Minister Elena Kagan at the same time can also make it easier for the judges to be expelled by the political inequities of a president, rather than being protected from such acts, as it is now.

Judges dismissed the SEC’s decision to approve recruitment practices for judges. Instead, the commissioners of the agency appointed to the presidency had to give the names of the SEC personnel, not justice officials.

Lucia, who now says that a new hearing must be held in front of the justified administrative judge, or that the commission itself is justice.

Sponsorship: insurance news. You deserve to upgrade. Go Pro! ıjpro. Insurance news for steroids.
“Constitutional Responsibility”
“As a result, we are excited about the end result of a victory for rule of law, constitutional accountability and freedom,” Lucia’s lawyer Mark Perry said.

An SEC spokesman said the agency was in a bad mood.

The SEC claimed that their judges were only employees because their decisions were uncertain and subject to scrutiny by the commission.

Six of the judges said that the appointment of judges was contrary to the Constitution. Liberal Justice Minister Stephen Breyer agreed with the result, but said his appointments only violated federal administrative law. Liberal Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor were exempted from the dark.

Kagan said that administrative judges have a broader mandate that can be described as the “lower officers” to be appointed by the president, department head or court in the constitution. Kagan said that “there may be administrative judges, as well as force the will of the army through traditional weapons.”

The SEC blamed Lucia for securities fraud in 2012. SEC Administrative Justice Judge Cameron Elliot ordered him to pay $ 300,000 in fines and pay him off the industry.

Corporate rights groups complained that as the executive powers of the SEC expanded, federal district courts issued more cases to their judges and offered the agency an unfair “home court” advantage.

Federal Decisions have dozens of lawsuits pending before the SEC, which could be affected by the decision as well as the decision in the courts. Lucia’s lawyer, Perry, said there were about 150 administrative judges in the 25 agents who could get under the caretaker assignments.

In November, the SEC took steps to ensure that internal judges were appointed to resolve constitutional concerns.

Legal warning !
The information, comments and suggestions there are not covered by investment advice. It is based on the author's personal opinions. These views may not fit your financial situation and risk and return preferences. For this reason, based solely on this information, investment decisions may not have the appropriate consequences for your expectation. Our Site is not responsible for any direct or indirect damages incurred by the investors as a result of the use of the information on the Site, deficiencies in the sources, damages incurred by profit, moral damages, or damage to third parties.