Tag: administrative state
Will SCOTUS revive the nondelegation doctrine? Cert. granted in Consumers’ Research v. FCC
When SCOTUS granted cert. in SEC v. Jarkesy, the case challenging the constitutionality of the SEC’s administrative enforcement proceedings, one of the questions presented was whether the statute granting authority to the SEC to elect to use ALJs violated the nondelegation doctrine. Jarkesy had contended that, in adopting the provision in Dodd-Frank permitting the use of ALJs but providing no guidance on the issue, “Congress has delegated to the SEC what would be legislative power absent a guiding intelligible principle” in violation of that doctrine. Had SCOTUS gone that route, commentators suggested, the case had the potential to be enormously significant in limiting the power of the SEC and other federal agencies beyond the question of ALJs. A column in the NYT discussing Jarkesy explained that, if “embraced in its entirety, the nondelegation doctrine could spell the end of agency power as we know it, turning the clock back to before the New Deal.” And in Bloomberg, Matt Levine wrote that, while the ”nondelegation doctrine has not had a lot of wins in the Supreme Court in the last 90 years….it’s back now: There is revived interest in it at the Supreme Court.” Had Jarkesy won the nondelegation argument, that could have meant “that all of the SEC’s rulemaking (and every other regulatory agency’s rulemaking) is suspect, that every policy decision that the SEC makes is unconstitutional. Much of US securities law would need to be thrown out, or perhaps rewritten by Congress if they ever got around to it. Stuff like the SEC’s climate rules would be dead forever.” In his view, “the Supreme Court does have several justices who would love to revive the nondelegation doctrine in a way that really would undermine most of securities regulation.” That didn’t happen in Jarkesy; SCOTUS studiously avoided addressing the issue, its looming presence in the lower court decision notwithstanding. But the nondelegation doctrine has again reared its head, this time in Consumers’ Research v. FCC out of the Fifth Circuit. In late November, SCOTUS granted cert. in that case (and consolidated it with another case, SHLB Coalition v. Consumers’ Research, that presented similar questions). All three of the questions presented in the cert. petition relate to the nondelegation doctrine (although another was added by SCOTUS itself). With this case now on the docket, will SCOTUS continue its shellacking of the administrative state? (See this PubCo post, this PubCo post, this PubCo post, this PubCo post and this PubCo post.) And add another big wrinkle: how will the new Administration approach this case and this question? While, historically, according to Bloomberg, the “solicitor general typically defends federal statutes and programs regardless of party affiliation,” there is no assurance that the new Administration will follow historical practice. Indeed, according to this article in Law.com, with a new administration, “[f]lipping positions at the Supreme Court has become a common trend of incoming U.S. solicitors general, even if it tends to irk the justices themselves.”
What happens when amplified SEC litigation challenges meet budget constraints?
Annually, the SEC’s Office of Inspector General offers its “independent perspective” on the “top management and performance challenges” facing the SEC. What stands out in the 2024 Inspector General’s Statement on the SEC’s Management and Performance Challenges? It’s that the SEC is confronting several serious challenges—particularly significant litigation challenges to its rulemaking—but, at the same time, is facing serious budget constraints. Not only have many of the recent rulemakings been challenged in court, but, in light of SCOTUS’s decision last term in Loper Bright, which put the kibosh on Chevron deference, the OIG expects that “SEC rulemaking will continue to face searching judicial scrutiny.” In addition, the OIG predicts that the “current regulatory environment may lead to increased forum shopping by petitioners and extended periods of uncertainty about the permissible scope of agency action.” In light of this heightened judicial scrutiny, the OIG advises, the SEC “must continue to develop a thorough administrative record, including meaningful opportunity for public participation and reasoned responses to public submissions. The SEC already invests considerable resources toward these ends, but should be prepared for additional litigation, as industry and public interest groups may take opportunities to challenge regulations.” At the same time, the OIG cautions, the dearth of resources under the current budget environment “may hinder the Agency’s ability to meet these challenges, mitigate its risks, and pursue its vital mission.” In particular, as a result of flat funding for fiscal 2024, the SEC was required to freeze hiring and eliminate certain employee benefits, while increased “personnel costs limit the resources available to update and improve legacy information systems, including information security.” Yet, “the changing regulatory environment will likely increase operational demands on the Agency and its staff,” rendering the financial constraints all the more problematic.
You can probably tell that this post was written prior to the vote count last night. The election results and coming change in
Administration will certainly affect the SEC’s rulemaking agenda and probably its litigation posture; however, to the extent that Democrats adopt a litigation strategy with regard to rulemaking by the new Administration that follows the current Republican playbook, many of the challenges identified by the OIG could well remain.
Future of SEC’s ALJs looks bleak—but the administrative state? Not so much
Last week, SCOTUS heard oral argument in Jarkesy v. SEC (BTW, pronounced Járk?z?, according to his counsel). As you may have heard, that case is about the constitutionality of the SEC’s administrative law judges. There were three questions presented, and Jarkesy had been successful in the appellate court on all three:
“1. Whether statutory provisions that empower the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to initiate and adjudicate administrative enforcement proceedings seeking civil penalties violate the Seventh Amendment.
2. Whether statutory provisions that authorize the SEC to choose to enforce the securities laws through an agency adjudication instead of filing a district court action violate the nondelegation doctrine.
3. Whether Congress violated Article II by granting for-cause removal protection to administrative law judges in agencies whose heads enjoy for-cause removal protection.”
While, on its face, the case may not have much allure, it has the potential to be enormously important in limiting the power of the SEC and other federal agencies. That’s especially true if SCOTUS broadly decides that the statute granting authority to the SEC to elect to use ALJs violates the nondelegation doctrine. This case, together with the two cases to be heard in January addressing the continued viability of Chevron deference (see this PubCo post), could go far to upend the “administrative state.” And, for those justices with a well-known antipathy to the administrative state, that might be their ultimate goal. (See, for example, the dissent of Chief Justice Roberts in City of Arlington v. FCC (2013), where he worried that “the danger posed by the growing power of the administrative state cannot be dismissed.”) During the over two-hour oral argument, however, the discussion was focused almost entirely on the question of whether the SEC’s use of an ALJ deprived Jarkesy of his Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial—certainly an important issue with possibly far-reaching implications across federal agencies. But what was most conspicuous—and perhaps most consequential—was what was not discussed: the nondelegation doctrine. In case I missed it, I searched the 170-page transcript and found the word “nondelegation” only once and that from the lips of SEC counsel. While, at the end of the day, the Court’s opinion could certainly go in a different direction, the oral argument did not leave the impression that the end of the administrative state is nigh—not as result of this case, at least.
Jarkesy and climate disclosure: how far will the courts go in constraining the administrative state?
On Wednesday, in an Expert Forum sponsored by Cornerstone Research, Stanford professor and former SEC Commissioner Joe Grundfest and Vice Chair and Chief Legal Officer of Millennium Management and former SEC General Counsel Simon Lorne discussed “The Evolving SEC Landscape: Jarkesy v. SEC and the Proposed Climate Rules.” The two seemingly disparate topics were united by a common thread—the intense skepticism exhibited by some courts (including a likely majority of SCOTUS) of the vast power of the administrative state and their undisguised enthusiasm to constrain it. As Grundfest put it, in a slightly different context, the words are different but the melody is the same. What will be the impact?
In Ohio v. EPA, SCOTUS reinforces powerful role of judiciary in agency oversight
As has been widely discussed, the administrative state took quite a shellacking this last SCOTUS term. But as I noted earlier, it wasn’t just the elimination of Chevron deference in Loper Bright (see this PubCo post) or administrative enforcement proceedings seeking civil penalties in SEC v. Jarkesy (see this PubCo post). There were at least a couple of other cases this term that contributed to the drubbing. One of them, Corner Post, Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, had the effect of extending the statute of limitations under the Administrative Procedure Act (see this PubCo post). Another case, Ohio v. EPA, in which SCOTUS put a temporary hold on the “good neighbor” provision of the Clean Air Act because EPA failed to “reasonably explain” its action, might also be worth your attention. In Ohio, Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the majority, concluded that enforcement of EPA’s rule should be stayed because the challengers were likely to prevail on the merits. Why? Because EPA had provided an inadequate explanation for the continued application of the emission control measures in the plan in response to comments. Where have we heard this “failure-to-explain” theory recently? How about Chamber of Commerce of the USA v. SEC, vacating the SEC’s share repurchase rule for, among other things, failure to respond to petitioners’ comments (see this PubCo post) or even National Association of Manufacturers v. SEC, vacating the 2022 rescission of certain proxy advisor rules for arbitrarily and capriciously failing to provide an adequate explanation to justify its change (see this PubCo post). Justice Amy Coney Barrett dissented, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, contending that the majority opinion “risks the ‘sort of unwarranted judicial examination of perceived procedural shortcomings’ that might ‘seriously interfere with that process prescribed by Congress.’” As characterized by Professor Nicholas Bagley of the University of Michigan Law School in Michigan Law, in its “broad strokes,” the dissent asserted that “courts shouldn’t be in the business of fly-specking lengthy notice-and-comment records,” especially with the benefit of hindsight. The question, he continued, “is whether the agency has behaved arbitrarily and capriciously, and that’s a pretty demanding standard.” With this decision, SCOTUS amplifies the increasingly powerful role of the judiciary in overseeing federal agencies, adding to the decisions this term seeking to rein in the administrative state.