Tag Archives: Free Enterprise Fund v. PCAOB

7th Circuit Rules for SEC, Affirming Dismissal of Bebo Case on Jurisdictional Grounds

On August 24, 2015, the Seventh Circuit handed the SEC a major victory in the ongoing battle over alleged constitutional infirmities of the SEC’s administrative judicial process.  It agreed with the lower court that Laurie Bebo’s federal court challenge to her administrative proceeding cannot be heard in the case filed by her seeking injunctive relief against an SEC administrative proceeding.  The court found that the circumstances of Bebo’s case were such that she was required to wait to present her constitutional objections before a federal appellate court on review of whatever action the SEC might ultimately take against her.  The opinion can be read here: 7th Circuit Decision in Bebo v. SEC.

The court found that the Bebo case — and presumably others like hers — was not like the PCAOB case in which the Supreme Court decided the constitutional challenge could be heard immediately, in Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, 561 U.S. 477 (2010).  The court summarized: “It is ‘fairly discernible’ from the statute that Congress intended plaintiffs in Bebo’s position ‘to proceed exclusively through the statutory review scheme’ set forth in 15 U.S.C. § 78y.  See Elgin v. Dep’t of Treasury, 567 U.S. —, 132 S. Ct. 2126, 2132–33 (2012).  Although § 78y is not ‘an exclusive route to review’ for all types of constitutional challenges, the relevant factors identified by the Court in Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, 561 U.S. 477, 489 (2010), do not adequately support Bebo’s attempt to skip the administrative and judicial review process here.  Although Bebo’s suit can reasonably be characterized as ‘wholly collateral’ to the statute’s review provisions and outside the scope of the agency’s expertise, a finding of preclusion does not foreclose all meaningful judicial review. . . .  And because she is already a respondent in a pending administrative proceeding, she would not have to ‘‘bet the farm … by taking the violative action’ before ‘testing the validity of the law.’’ . . .  Unlike the plaintiffs in Free Enterprise Fund, Bebo can find meaningful review of her claims under § 78y.”

The court then addressed the arguments in greater detail:

The statutory issue here is a jurisdictional one: whether the statutory judicial review process under 15 U.S.C. § 78y bars district court jurisdiction over a constitutional challenge to the SEC’s authority when the plaintiff is the respondent in a pending enforcement proceeding.  Where the statutory review scheme does not foreclose all judicial review but merely directs that judicial review occur in a particular forum, as in this case, the appropriate inquiry is whether it is “fairly discernible” from the statute that Congress intended the plaintiff “to proceed exclusively through the statutory review scheme.” Elgin v. Dep’t of Treasury, 567 U.S. —, 132 S.Ct. 2126, 2132–33 (2012). 

This inquiry is claim-specific.  To find congressional intent to limit district court jurisdiction, we must conclude that the claims at issue “are of the type Congress intended to be reviewed within th[e] statutory structure.”  Free Enterprise Fund, 561 U.S. at 489, quoting Thunder Basin Coal Co. v. Reich, 510 U.S. 200, 212 (1994).  We examine the statute’s text, structure, and purpose. . . .

. . . .  Our focus in this appeal is whether Bebo’s case is sufficiently similar to Free Enterprise Fund to allow her to bypass the ALJ and judicial review under § 78y.  Based on the Supreme Court’s further guidance in Elgin, we believe the answer is no.

. . . .

Read broadly, the jurisdictional portion of Free Enterprise Fund seems to open the door for a plaintiff to gain access to federal district courts by raising broad constitutional challenges to the authority of the agency where those challenges (1) do not depend on the truth or falsity of the agency’s factual allegations against the plaintiff and (2) the plaintiff’s claims do not implicate the agency’s expertise.  That’s how Bebo reads the case.  She argues that Free Enterprise Fund controls here because her complaint raises facial challenges to the constitutionality of the enabling statute (§ 929P(a) of Dodd-Frank) and to the structural authority of the agency itself, and the merits of those claims do not depend on the truth or falsity of the SEC’s factual claims against Bebo or implicate the agency’s expertise.  While Bebo’s position has some force, we think the Supreme Court’s more recent discussion of these issues in the Elgin case undermines the broader reading of the jurisdictional holding of Free Enterprise Fund.

. . . .

[T]he Elgin Court specifically rejected the plaintiffs’ argument, advanced by Bebo in this appeal and by the dissent in Elgin, that facial constitutional challenges automatically entitled the plaintiffs to seek judicial review in the district court. . . .

The Elgin Court also read the jurisdictional portion of Free Enterprise Fund narrowly, distinguishing it on grounds directly relevant here. . . .  [In Elgin, b]ecause the [controlling statute] provided review in the Federal Circuit, “an Article III court fully competent to adjudicate petitioners’ claims [of unconstitutionality],” the statutory scheme provided an opportunity for meaningful judicial review.

. . . .

Elgin established several key points that undermine Bebo’s effort to skip administrative adjudication and statutory judicial review here.  First, Elgin made clear that Bebo cannot
sue in district court under § 1331 merely because her claims are facial constitutional challenges.  Second, it established that jurisdiction does not turn on whether the SEC has authority to hold § 929P(a) of Dodd-Frank unconstitutional, nor does it hinge on whether Bebo’s constitutional challenges fall outside the agency’s expertise.  Third, Elgin showed that the ALJ’s and SEC’s fact-finding capacities, even if more limited than a federal district court’s, are sufficient for meaningful judicial review.  Finally, Elgin explained that the possibility that Bebo might prevail in the administrative proceeding (and thereby avoid the need to raise her constitutional claims in an Article III court) does not render the statutory review scheme inadequate.

. . . .  We think the most critical thread in the case law is the first Free Enterprise Fund factor: whether the plaintiff will be able to receive meaningful judicial review without access to the district courts.  The second and third Free Enterprise Fund factors, although relevant to that determination, are not controlling, for the Supreme Court has never said that any of them are sufficient conditions to bring suit in federal district court under § 1331.  We therefore assume for purposes of argument that Bebo’s claims are “wholly collateral” to the administrative review scheme.  Even if we give Bebo the benefit of that assumption, we think it is “fairly discernible” that Congress intended Bebo to proceed exclusively through the statutory review scheme established by § 78y because that scheme provides for meaningful judicial review in “an Article III court fully competent to adjudicate petitioners’ claims.”

. . . .

Bebo’s counter to this way of synthesizing the cases is that the administrative review scheme established by § 78y is inadequate because, by the time she is able to seek judicial review in a court of appeals, she will have already been subjected to an unconstitutional proceeding. The Supreme Court rejected this type of argument in FTC v. Standard Oil Co., 449 U.S. 232, 244 (1980), holding that the expense and disruption of defending oneself in an administrative proceeding does not automatically entitle a plaintiff to pursue judicial review in the district courts, even when those costs are “substantial.”

This point is fundamental to administrative law. Every person hoping to enjoin an ongoing administrative proceeding could make this argument, yet courts consistently require plaintiffs to use the administrative review schemes established by Congress. . . .  It is only in the exceptional cases, such as Free Enterprise Fund and McNary, where courts allow plaintiffs to avoid the statutory review schemes prescribed by Congress. This is not
such a case.

Although several courts have now reached differing conclusions on this jurisdictional issue (see In Duka v. SEC, SDNY Judge Berman Finds SEC Administrative Law Enforcement Proceedings Constitutional in a Less than Compelling Opinion, and Court Issues Preliminary Injunction Halting Likely Unconstitutional SEC Proceeding), the Seventh Circuit is the first appellate court to do so, and that alone is likely to carry weight elsewhere.  But this is also a strongly-stated opinion, which examines seriously and in depth the somewhat varying Supreme Court precedent.  The fact that the court takes on Ms. Bebo’s arguments directly and rejects them on the basis of its interpretation of the Supreme Court precedent makes it even more likely to be influential.

The D.C. and Eleventh Circuits may be the next appellate courts to consider the jurisdictional issue.  The D.C. Circuit heard argument on this jurisdictional issue in Jarkesy v. SEC, and it may issue the next appellate opinion.  See Appeals panel considers SEC’s use of in-house courts.  And the 11th Circuit has already received the SEC’s brief on appeal in Hill v. SEC, which it appealed from the preliminary injunction issued by Judge Leigh May in the Northern District of Georgia.  See SEC 11th Circuit Appeal Brief in Hill v. SEC.  Because Judge May decided her court had jurisdiction, and then went on to find a likely constitutional violation, The 11th Circuit briefs will address both the jurisdictional issue and the merits of some of the constitutional arguments.  If the 11th Circuit agrees with the 7th Circuit that there is no jurisdiction to bring these cases, however, it will vacate the preliminary injunction and not address the merits of Mr. Hill’s claim.

Depending on what these appellate courts do, and whether they concur in the 7th Circuit’s analysis, the door to injunctive relief in the federal courts for these alleged constitutional violations may slam shut.  That would focus attention on the merits of the claims in cases decided by the SEC on a petition for review from an administrative decision.  The case likely to be the first such SEC decision that could be appealed would seem to be In the Matter of Timbervest, LLC, in which the SEC is still receiving supplemental briefing addressing constitutional and discovery issues.  See SEC Broadens Constitutional Inquiry into Its Own Administrative Judges in Timbervest Case and Division of Enforcement Continues To Refuse To Comply with SEC Orders in Timbervest Case.

Stay tuned.

Straight Arrow

August 24, 2015

Contact Straight Arrow privately here, or leave a public comment below:

SEC ALJ Says He Lacks Authority To Decide Key Constitutional Challenges

On May 14, 2014, in In the Matter of Charles L. Hill, Jr., File No. 3-16383, SEC administrative law judge James Grimes ruled that he had no authority to decide that a portion of the Dodd-Frank Act allowing the SEC to commence civil actions against unregulated persons in its administrative law court was unconstitutional.  That could have a bearing on the issue of the standing of SEC administrative targets to bring federal court challenges to those proceedings.  ALJ Grimes did decide that he could address the constitutionality of the double layer of tenure protection provided to SEC ALJs against Presidential removal power, and, not surprisingly, ruled that he held his position constitutionally.  But he declined to offer any view on Mr. Hill’s arguments that the Dodd-Frank Act improperly delegated authority to the SEC, and that he had been denied a Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial.  The Order is available here: Order Denying Respondent’s Motion for Summary Disposition on Constitutional Issues.

On the issue of his authority to rule, he wrote:

After receiving Mr. Hill’s motion, I directed the parties to address “whether I have the authority to rule on Mr. Hill’s constitutional challenges.” . . .  The Division responded that I have authority to rule on Mr. Hill’s challenges. . . .  Mr. Hill disagrees. . . .

Subsequent to instructing the parties to address my authority to rule on Mr. Hill’s constitutional challenges, it came to my attention that the Commission has repeatedly held that it lacks the authority “to invalidate the very statutes that Congress has directed [it] to enforce.” . . .  It has recently reaffirmed this interpretation of its authority. . . .  The Commission thus operates on the assumption that its “governing statutes are constitutional” “[u]nless and until the courts declare otherwise.”

It follows from the foregoing that I lack the authority to rule on the constitutionality of particular provisions of the Exchange Act.

ALJ Grimes nevertheless concluded that he could address the issue of constitutionality of the double-layer of tenure protection afforded to SEC ALJs because that involved protections under 5 U.S.C. § 7521, which is not part of the Exchange Act.  He did so even though: “It would be incongruous . . . if I were unable to address the constitutionality of a provision of the Exchange Act, an Act I am regularly required to construe, but able to address the constitutionality of Section 7521, a provision I do not normally encounter.”

Turning to the double-layer of tenure protection, he “assumed” that ALJs are “inferior officers” of the Executive Branch, noting that “[b]oth parties have presented strong arguments in support of their positions.”  Nevertheless, he found that the double-layer of protection given to SEC ALJs against removal by the President does not make them unconstitutional because SEC ALJs “exercise only adjudicatory functions” that are “limited to a specific subject matter.”  In doing so, he relied almost exclusively on the Supreme Court’s decision in Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. 654 (1988), which addressed the constitutionality of the independent special prosecutor statute, and said “the real question is whether the removal restrictions are of such a nature that they impede the President’s ability to perform his constitutional duty, and the functions of the officials in question must be analyzed in that light.”  Id. at 691.  Because “the Commission’s administrative law judges exercise only adjudicatory functions,” and “their jurisdiction is limited to a specific subject matter and they ‘lack[] policymaking or significant administrative authority'” (quoting Morrison), “the dual-tenure protection afforded administrative law judges does not unconstitutionally impair the President’s ability to remove executive branch officials because those particular officials do not perform functions ‘central to the functioning of the Executive Branch'” (again quoting Morrison).

ALJ Grimes concludes: “Furthermore, taken to its logical end, Mr. Hill’s argument would mean that almost no independent agency could use administrative law judges.  If “‘a page of history is worth a volume of logic,’” however, it is unlikely this could be the case.”  Although he says that SEC ALJs are “not among ‘those who execute the laws,’” he does not address at all the critical role of SEC ALJs as part of what is probably the second most significant law enforcement agency in the federal government — the SEC — and the many respects in which SEC ALJs exercise significant discretion in the operation of that law enforcement process.

But ALJ Grimes chose not to offer any view on the other two constitutional challenges raised by Mr. Hill: (1) that “by giving the Commission the discretion to choose whether to seek civil penalties against unregulated individuals either administratively or in district court, Congress impermissibly delegated legislative power to the Commission”; and (2) that “by giving the Commission authority to bring an administrative action against an unregulated individual, Congress infringed on his Seventh Amendment right to a jury.”

On these issues, ALJ Grimes concluded that the limits on his authority to address constitutional issues preclude him from addressing those arguments.  Interestingly, in reaching this conclusion, he also implicitly holds that the SEC itself has no power to reach those issues, because the grounds for limiting his authority apply equally to the Commission.  That gives significant ammunition to those trying to get judicial review of these constitutional issues, because the standing to do so depends in part on whether the SEC has the power to address them as part of the normal administrative adjudication process.

Straight Arrow

May 15, 2015

Contact Straight Arrow privately here, or leave a public comment below:

Briefing of ALJ Constitutionality Before SEC Leaves Resolution in Doubt

We discuss today the SEC’s pending consideration of a challenge to its administrative law process in In the Matter of Timbervest, LLC et al., File No. 3-15519.

Briefly, the case involved alleged violations of sections 206(1) and 206(2) of the Investment Advisors Act.  Timbervest is an Atlanta company that manages timber-related investments. The SEC alleged that in 2006 and 2007, company officers received unauthorized and undisclosed real estate commissions paid out of the pension plan assets of Timbervest’s largest client.  The SEC further alleges that in 2005-2006, Timbervest made an undisclosed and unauthorized sale of a timberland property from a fund holding that same client’s pension assets to another investment fund the firm managed.

The order instituting proceedings was issued in September 2013.  The administrative proceeding was tried before SEC Administrative Law Judge Cameron Elliot, who issued his Initial Decision in August 2014.  Mr. Elliot found for the Division of Enforcement in all respects except that he concluded two of the individual respondents lacked the scienter required for aiding and abetting the firm’s violations, and that the five-year statute of limitations in 28 U.S.C. § 2462 precluded the associational bars sought against the individuals and the revocation of Timbervest’s adviser’s license.  Both the respondents and the Division of Enforcement petitioned the SEC for review, and both petitions were granted.  In their ensuing filings, the respondents argued, among other things, that the administrative process was unconstitutional because SEC ALJs are executive officers who enjoy “two-tiered tenure protection,” although they dedicated only two paragraphs in their opening brief to this issue, and the Division of Enforcement responded with only one paragraph in its opposition brief.  In response, the Commission asked that the parties file supplemental briefs on that issue.

Those supplemental briefs have now been filed.  The Division of Enforcement’s supplemental brief is here, the respondents’ supplemental brief is here, and a supplemental notice of authority by the respondents is here.  The SEC recently scheduled oral argument on the case for June 8, 2015.  We know, of course, that the SEC is going to uphold the constitutionality of its own ALJs, so the result at this stage is not really in question.  But there will be an appeal to a court of appeals (either the D.C. Circuit or the Eleventh Circuit are possibilities), so it’s useful to see how convincingly the Division of Enforcement argued the constitutionality issue to the Commission.  By my measure, the arguments made are pretty weak, which still leaves to $64,000 Question: will a court of appeals or the Supreme Court really be willing to invalidate the SEC ALJ framework on the basis of this record?

The Division of Enforcement argued that “Commission administrative proceedings do not violate Article II of the Constitution” because “Commission ALJs are not constitutional officers – the only Court of Appeals to have considered the status of an agencys ALJs concluded they are employees, see Landry v. FDIC, 204 F.3d 1125, 1132-34 (D.C. Cir. 2002) – and therefore the removal framework applicable to them does not implicate Article II. And even if Commission ALJs were constitutional officers, the President exercises adequate control to satisfy the Constitution.”  Division Supplemental Br. at 1.

Let’s examine those arguments.

The Argument that “Commission ALJs Are Not Constitutional Officers”

The first argument – that the SEC ALJs are “employees” rather than “inferior officers” from a constitutional standpoint – seems particularly weak.  Perhaps if the SEC were writing on a blank slate this might be sustainable.  But it is not deciding this issue without controlling guidance.  There are a number of Supreme Court decisions out there that must be taken into account.  The Division’s brief does a poor job of addressing these binding precedents.

As we previously wrote (see Challenges to the Constitutionality of SEC Administrative Proceedings in Peixoto and Stilwell May Have Merit), the Supreme Court addressed similar issues in decisions in Freytag v. Commissioner, 501 U.S. 868 (1991), Weiss v. United States, 510 U.S. 163 (1994); Ryder v. United States, 515 U.S. 177 (1995); and Edmond v. United States, 520 U.S. 651 (1997).  Freytag ruled that special trial judges for the Tax Court were “inferior Officers” under the constitution, and not “employees” who assisted Tax Court judges in taking evidence and preparing a ruling – even though they lacked authority to render “final decisions” – because they exercised significant discretion in performing tasks like taking testimony, conducting trials, ruling on the admissibility of evidence, and deciding and ordering compliance with discovery orders.  Weiss noted that military judges were Officers of the United States because of their authority and responsibilities, but the issue was not contested by the parties.  Ryder ruled that that judges serving on the Coast Guard Court of Military Review were officers covered by the Appointments Clause, even though they were subject to review by a higher appellate court.  And Edmond explained that intermediate appellate military judges were not “principal officers,” because they were subordinate to a higher ranking officer below the President, were subject to oversight, and could not render final decisions, but plainly considered them to be “inferior officers.”

These cases negate many of the arguments made in the Division’s brief.  It mattered not that these other officials found to be executive officers were involved in a preliminary process; could not render final decisions; were subject to being reversed; served in an adjudicatory, rather than a “core executive” capacity; were subject to supervision by others; and even were “subordinate” to others.  All of the Division’s arguments that ALJs are “employees,” and not “executive officers” for those reasons simply cannot survive contrary Supreme Court precedent.

The invocation of the D.C. Circuit decision in Landry v. FDIC cannot change this.  In Landry, a split D.C. Circuit panel ruled that an FDIC ALJ was not an “inferior officer,” but was instead a mere “employee.”   The opinion questioned the usefulness of the Supreme Court’s guidance in Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 126 n.162 (1976), that “any appointee exercising significant authority pursuant to the laws of the United States is an ‘Officer of the United States.’”  But the Buckley language was the starting point for the analysis of this issue in Freytag, in which the Court found dispositive the “significance of the duties and discretion that special trial judges possess.”  501 U.S. at 881.  The Landry majority argued that the critical difference between the special trial judges in the Tax Court and the FDIC ALJs was that FDIC ALJs only made “recommendations” to the FDIC, and thus could never issue final decisions.  Not only did that misread Freytag, which focused on the array of “significant” “duties and discretion” of the special trial judges, and not final decision-making powers, but it also ignored the discussions in Weiss, Ryder, and Edmonds, which made it plain that being a final decision-maker was not a decisive factor in determining whether someone is an “inferior officer.”

But even accepting the Landry majority opinion on its face, it provides little assistance to the Division because in some cases SEC ALJs do make “final decisions” like the special trial judges of the Tax Court.  The FDIC was required to review every ALJ “recommendation.”  But the SEC can, and does, decline to review ALJ decisions, and in those cases, it matters little to constitutional analysis that these decisions require a ministerial Commission order to make them formally “final” and appealable.  Moreover, the SEC does not, and cannot realistically, review an ALJ’s management and oversight of the administrative trial itself, during which many “final decisions” are made on important issues that determine the record the SEC can review.  And, of course, the approach taken by a court of appeals panel – and a split one at that – hardly trumps the guidance of the Supreme Court on how to go about determining whether a government official is an “inferior officer.”

The final nail in the coffin of the Division’s argument that the D.C. Circuit decided once and for all in Landry that ALJs are only agency “employees,” and not executive “officers,” is laid out in the Timbervest respondents’ brief.  They point out that the Government itself admitted this is not so.  To avoid a writ of certiorari in Landry, the Government represented to the Supreme Court that the Landry court did not decide that issue.  Here is what the Solicitor General said: “The court of appeals did not purport to establish any categorical rule that administrative law judges are employees rather than ‘inferior Officers.’ . . .” Timbervest Respondents’ Br. at 16 (quoting the U.S. Government brief in opposition to the petition for writ of certiorari).

The Division’s brief presents another argument that carries little water on the “inferior officer” versus “employee” issue: that Congress already decided that ALJs are just employees, not executive officers, by its “placement of the position within the competitive service system,” and the courts must defer to that decision by Congress.  That is wrong in two respects.  First, there is no indication that Congress made any such decision when it placed ALJs within the overall civil service system, and the Division cites no support for that contention.  Second, and far more importantly, it should be wrong that Congress has the power to decide when double-tenure protection can prevent the President from influencing government officials simply by designating those officials to be mere “employees.”  The whole point of the separation of powers doctrine is to assure that Congress may not deprive the President of his constitutional authority to execute the laws; it would be bizarre if Congress could grant executive powers to officials and then insulate them from the President’s influence by exercising Legislative muscle.  The best the Division could muster on this point was language in Justice Souter’s concurring opinion in Weiss suggesting “deference to the principal branches’ judgment is appropriate” (Divison Br. at 8, quoting 510 U.S. at 194), but that is a slim reed that cannot, I believe, be sustained without doing serious harm to the separation of powers concept.

Freytag and the other Supreme Court cases make it crystal clear that whether an executive official is an “inferior officer” depends on the “significance of the duties and discretion” that the official possesses, not a Congressional designation.  The Division simply cannot avoid the obvious similarity – and near congruence – of the “duties and discretion” of SEC ALJs in comparison to the special trial judges at issue in Freytag.  The Court, which was otherwise divided, unanimously viewed the special trial judges as “inferior officers” within the meaning of the Constitution based on their duties, discretion, and overall role in executive department proceedings, which showed that they exercised “significant authority pursuant to the laws of the United States.”  The SEC ALJs have, in reality, at least as great, and almost surely greater, authority and discretion in SEC administrative law enforcement proceedings, and no argument made by the Division in its brief shows otherwise.

The Argument that “Even if Commission ALJs Were Constitutional Officers, the President Exercises Adequate Control To Satisfy the Constitution”

The Division’s argument that the President has adequate control over SEC ALJs faces only one major obstacle: the Supreme Court’s decision in Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, 561 U.S. 477 (2010).  There, the Court found that a double layer of “for cause” protection for executive officers from removal by the President was constitutionally unacceptable.  The Division’s task is to identify differences that justify allowing double “for cause” protection for SEC ALJs despite the Free Enterprise Fund decision.  The Division is assisted here by footnote 10 of the opinion, which said: “our holding does not address that subset of independent agency employees who serve as administrative law judges. . . .   And unlike members of the Board, many administrative law judges of course perform adjudicative rather than enforcement or policymaking functions.”  561 U.S. at 507 n.10.

As we saw above, the mere fact that the SEC ALJs “perform adjudicative . . . functions” is not enough under Supreme Court precedent to prevent them from being executive officers performing executive functions.  And on this front, it does not help the Division that the SEC ALJs plainly serve as key players in the SEC’s law enforcement function.

The Division makes the argument, correctly, that the separation of powers doctrine does not create a rigid, formal structure of Branches hermetically-sealed from one another.  The Supreme Court recognizes that there are gray areas, and in such cases it is appropriate to conduct a functional analysis of the extent to which a statutory framework truly impairs a Branch from performing its constitutional duties.  Perhaps the best example of that is the special prosecutor case, Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. 654 (1988), which adopted a multifactor test to determine whether the statute that limited Executive control over the special prosecutor was consistent with the separation of powers doctrine.  The Division appropriately quotes Morrison’s statement that interference with removal of the special prosecutor can be acceptable if it does not “interfere with the President’s exercise of the ‘executive power’” or the duty to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”  Division Br. at 14 (quoting 487 U.S. at 689-90).

The Division’s brief goes on to draw distinctions between the PCAOB and the SEC’s administrative law judges, mostly by focusing on the PCAOB’s broader role in policymaking, as well as arguing that the PCAOB exercises power more independently than the ALJs.  Whether these are distinctions of constitutional dimension is not apparent, however, since in the realm in which the ALJs function, they have a high degree of independent control over a key law enforcement function, and the constitutional importance of whether they do or do not make policy (as opposed to performing other executive functions) is by no means clear.  But the point is sufficiently made that the analogy between the PCAOB and the ALJs is not so close that it is, in and of itself, compelling (as compared to the analogy of ALJs to the special trial judges in Freytag, which is so close that it is compelling).

Having made a credible showing that the unconstitutionality of the SEC ALJs does not follow inexorably from the Free Enterprise Fund decision, the Division turned to the argument that double insulation of the ALJs from Presidential removal does not significantly impair the President’s executive powers.  The Division makes five arguments.  Four of them are less than compelling; one is downright embarrassing.

First, the Division argues that the Commission decides when the ALJs get to decide cases, and the Commission has only one layer of “for cause” removal protection.  That formalistic argument would seem to carry little weight as part of a functional analysis, however.  From a realistic, functional standpoint, the Commission does – and in reality must – utilize the ALJs to do its enforcement work because it could not handle the workload without them. Put another way, the creation of the ALJs allows the Commission to expand its enforcement activity exponentially, and fueling that expansion with executive officers who cannot be influenced by the President has a real, functional effect on the President’s ability to execute the laws.

Second, the Division argues that “the functions that the Commission has assigned to its ALJs are limited in scope and do not rise to the level of core executive authority.”  Division Br. at 18.  This argument is, in essence, that because ALJs only adjudicate cases, and do not “make policy,” their activities do not significantly impair the President’s execution of the laws.  As the Division says: SEC ALJ adjudications “involve the application of the law to a discrete set of facts in individual cases.”  Id.  I see two problems with this argument. One, it runs headlong into the Supreme Court decisions (discussed above) that either hold, or assume, that officials performing adjudicative roles within an executive function are important facets of the President’s duty to oversee the faithful execution of the laws.  Two, overseeing individual prosecutions, finding facts in those cases, weighing the importance and implications of those facts under the law, and determining whether there are violations, and what remedies should be imposed if there are, are arguably the essence of “core executive authority” because law enforcement prosecutions are a core executive function.

Third, the Division argues that the President can “exercise constitutionally adequate control” over ALJ decisions because “the Commission retains ultimate authority over administrative proceedings” and “exercises sufficient control over SEC ALJs regardless of the limittations placed upon their removal.”  Division Br. at 19.  This is essentially a rehash of earlier points, and runs into the reality, and the buzzsaw of prior Supreme Court decisions, that adjudicators do, in fact, make essentially non-reviewable discretionary decisions that control how a case is presented to the Commission.  They mold the record the Commission gets to review, and that power substantially impacts – or certainly can substantially impact – the Commission’s substantive review powers.

Fourth, the Division argues that the double-tenure protection accorded to SEC ALJs is less extreme than the protection provided to the PCAOB members.  Id.  This is largely a one-paragraph throw-away point, as the Division makes no effort to explain how the difference it argues has a functional impact on Presidential control.

Fifth, “the Executive Branch’s use of tenure-protected ALJs for nearly seventy years establishes a gloss on the Constitution that supports the current removal framework.” Division Br. at 20.  The Division would have been better off leaving this out.  The SEC cannot seriously find that the structure of its administrative enforcement process should be deemed constitutional simply because it has been around for a long time.  The argument is revealing, however, because it reflects what the SEC staff – and probably the SEC itself – really thinks.  They could have written the point more eloquently if they said what they meant (paraphrasing the famous line in Treasure of the Sierra Madre): “Constitutional authority?  We don’t need no stinking constitutional authority.”

[The actual line in the movie is: “Badges?  We ain’t got no badges.  We don’t need no badges.  I don’t have to show you any stinkin’ badges!”  And, as a diversion, enjoy this clip, this one from Blazing Saddles, and this montage.]

Humphrey Bogart in Treasure of the Sierra Madre

Humphrey Bogart in Treasure of the Sierra Madre

Alfonso Bedoya as

Alfonso Bedoya as “Gold Hat” in Treasure of the Sierra Madre — He don’t need no stinkin’ badges.

Seriously, though, the Division’s discussion of why the double-tenure protection of ALJs does not significantly impair the President’s ability to control SEC administrative law enforcement decisions is light on focused analysis of the nature of those law enforcement decisions, the respects in which the Chief Executive may have an interest in influencing those decisions, and the ways in which he can achieve those goals notwithstanding the double-tenure protection.  That is the kind of functional analysis called for by Morrison v. Olson, and the Division brief fails to address those key issues.

Based on reviewing these briefs, this continues to be a close call. The hydraulics are in the Division’s favor – certainly before the Commission, but also before an ultimate court of appeals, which will stretch mightily to avoid undercutting the SEC ALJ framework, and presumably other similar independent agency administrative enforcement frameworks (executive agencies, however, would not present the double-tenure protection issue).

Straight Arrow

May 6, 2015

Contact Straight Arrow privately here, or leave a public comment below:

In Duka v. SEC, SDNY Judge Berman Finds SEC Administrative Law Enforcement Proceedings Constitutional in a Less than Compelling Opinion

Southern District of New York federal Judge Richard Berman yesterday decided that Barbara Duka, a former Standard & Poor’s employee charged with securities law violations by the SEC, cannot enjoin the SEC administrative enforcement action brought against her.  In doing so, Judge Berman rejected the argument that he lacked jurisdiction over the case, unlike two previous federal court judges.  See SEC Wins First Skirmish on Constitutional Challenge to Chau Administrative Proceeding, and Court Dismisses “Compelling and Meritorious” Bebo Constitutional Claims Solely on Jurisdictional Grounds.  As a result, he addressed the merits of Ms. Duka’s constitutional argument, finding the she was “unlikely to succeed on the merits” of that claim. Likely success on the merits of the claim is a requirement for granting the preliminary injunctive relief sought by Ms. Duka.  The opinion is available here: Order Denying Relief in Duka v. SEC.

Jurisdiction

Judge Berman rejected the jurisdictional argument accepted by two prior judges because, unlike them, he concluded that the relief sought by Ms. Duka could not be satisfied within the administrative adjudication process, the challenge made addressed not the substance of the claims against her but the very suitability of the forum to adjudicate those claims, and the constitutional issue fell outside of the SEC’s area of expertise.

On the availability of a remedy, here is what the court said:

The Court concludes that the absence of subject matter jurisdiction “could foreclose all meaningful judicial review” of Plaintiff’s claim. . . .  The Court of Appeals obviously would not be able, upon appellate review of any final SEC order, to enjoin the SEC from conducting the Administrative Proceeding, as Duka asks this Court to do.  And, while the Court of Appeals could, presumably, vacate an adverse decision (order) by the SEC on constitutional grounds, it would be unable to remedy the harm alleged by Plaintiff in this Court, i.e., the “substantial litigation and resource burdens incurred during [the] administrative proceeding,” and the “reputational harm” associated with her defending the Administrative Proceeding. . . .

Plaintiff is not here challenging the outcome of her Administrative Proceeding or any order(s) issued by the SEC.  Rather, Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the proceeding itself, and the (injunctive and declaratory) relief she seeks is to prevent the Administrative Proceeding from occurring in the first place. . . .  If Plaintiff were required, as the Government urges, to await the completion of the Administrative Proceeding to seek (any) judicial intervention, important remedies could be foreclosed.  That is, her claim for injunctive and declaratory relief would likely be moot at that stage because the allegedly unconstitutional Administrative Proceeding would have already taken place. Simply put, there would be no proceeding to enjoin. . . .

Slip op. at 10-12 (cites and footnotes omitted).

And this on whether the relief sought was collateral to the substance of the underlying proceeding, or an appropriate part of that proceeding:

The Court concludes that Plaintiff’s claim for injunctive and declaratory relief is “wholly collateral” to “any Commission orders or rules from which review might be sought” in the Court of Appeals. . . .  In Free Enterprise, the Supreme Court found that the petitioners’ Article II claim was collateral because “petitioners object[ed] to the Board’s existence, not to any of its auditing standards.”. . .  Similarly, Duka contends that her Administrative Proceeding may not constitutionally take place, and she does not attack any order that may be issued in her Administrative Proceeding relating to “the outcome of the SEC action.”  Chau [v. SEC], 2014 WL 6984236, at *13; see Gupta [v. SEC], 796 F. Supp. 2d at 513 (where plaintiff “would state a claim even if [he] were entirely guilty of the charges made against him . . . .”).

Unlike the plaintiffs in Chau, Duka does not assert an “as-applied” challenge to agency action “in light of the facts of a specific case.”  Chau, 2014 WL 6984236, at *6.  Rather, she contends that Administrative Proceedings are “unconstitutional in all instances—a facial challenge.”  Id.  As Judge Kaplan noted in Chau, “courts are more likely to sustain preenforcement jurisdiction over broad facial and systematic challenges.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

Slip op. at 12-13.

On the issue of the SEC’s expertise to decide the constitutional issue, Judge Berman wrote:

Without in any way diminishing ALJ Elliot’s exceptional legal background, the Court concludes that the constitutional claim posed in this injunctive/declaratory judgment case is outside the SEC’s expertise.  This aspect of executive agency practice is governed by clear Supreme Court precedent.  See Thunder Basin [Coal Co. v. Reich], 510 U.S. at 215 (“[A]djudication of the constitutionality of congressional enactments has generally been thought beyond the jurisdiction of administrative agencies.”); see also Free Enterprise [Fund v. Pub. Co. Accounting Oversight Bd.], 561 U.S. at 491 (“Petitioners’ constitutional claims are also outside the Commission’s competence and expertise . . . .  [T]he statutory questions involved do not require ‘technical considerations of [agency] policy’. . . .  They are instead standard questions of administrative law, which the courts are at no disadvantage in answering.”).

Slip op. at 14.

Likelihood of Success on the Merits

When he turned to the merits of the constitutional issue, Judge Berman was unwilling to apply the Supreme Court’s Free Enterprise Fund decision to the SEC’s administrative law judges. Not, however, because he doubted that SEC ALJ’s are “inferior officers” of the Executive Branch in constitutional terms.  He did not decide that issue, because he said it was unnecessary, but plainly viewed prior Supreme Court precedent regarding Tax Court special trial judges in Freytag v. Commissioner likely to be determinative: “The Supreme Court’s decision in Freytag v. Commissioner, 501 U.S. 868 (1991), which held that a Special Trial Judge of the Tax Court was an “inferior officer” under Article II, would appear to support the conclusion that SEC ALJs are also inferior officers. See Freytag, 501 U.S. at 881–82 (“[S]pecial trial judges perform more than ministerial tasks. They take testimony, conduct trials, rule on the admissibility of evidence, and have the power to enforce compliance with discovery orders. In the course of carrying out these important functions, the special trial judges exercise significant discretion.”).  Slip op. at 16.  As noted, however, Judge Berman decided he “need not resolve that issue.”  Id.

That is because he reasoned that even if the SEC’s ALJ’s are inferior officers, the double-layer of removal protection they are accorded by statute does not undermine the President’s Executive power.  He noted that the Free Enterprise Fund Court “specifically excluded ALJs from the reach of its holding,” and rejected Ms. Duka’s argument that Free Enterprise Fund established a “categorical rule” forbidding two levels of “good cause” tenure protection.  Slip op. at 17.

Instead, Judge Berman created “a functional test to determine whether and when statutory limitations on the President’s power to remove executive officers violate Article II” based on other Supreme Court precedent.  He relied on the Supreme Court’s special prosecutor case, Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. 654 (1988), to argue for a test focused on whether Congress “interfere[d] with the President’s exercise of the ‘executive power’ under Article II” (quoting Morrison, 487 U.S. at 689-90). Although Free Enterprise Fund had no similar language regarding the double-layer of removal protection, Judge Berman argued that the Free Enterprise Fund decision “likewise focused upon whether the statutory restrictions on removal of PCAOB members were so structured as to infringe the President’s constitutional authority by ‘depriv[ing] the President of adequate control over the Board.’ Free Enterprise, 561 U.S. at 508.”  Slip op. at 17-18.

Judge Berman went on to reason “that congressional restrictions upon the President’s ability to remove ‘quasi judicial’ agency adjudicators are unlikely to interfere with the President’s ability to perform his executive duties.”  He argued that SEC ALJs exercise adjudicative power rather than executive power, and therefore the limits on removal of ALJs do not interfere with the President’s exercise of executive power.  He contrasted the Free Enterprise Fund case, which involved a subordinate entity of the SEC that “determines the policy and enforces the laws of the United States.”  Slip op. at 19-20.  In contrast, he said: “SEC ALJs perform solely adjudicatory functions, and are not engaged in policymaking or enforcement.”  Id. at 20.  As a result, “[t]he challenged (good cause) limitations upon the removal of an SEC ALJ will in no way ‘impede the President’s ability to perform his constitutional duty.’  Morrison, 487 U.S. at 691.”

Indeed, he argues that if the President could dismiss ALJ’s without cause, that would “undermine” the agency adjudication process, citing an article by Elena Kagan, written before she became a Supreme Court justice. Slip op. at 21.

How Good Is the Opinion, and How Influential Might It Be

Having elided the issue of whether the SEC ALJs are “inferior officers,” the opinion strikes me as somewhat superficial and relatively weak effort at resolving the constitutional issues that arise if they are, indeed, officers in the Executive Branch.  Judge Berman dispenses with this issue in a mere 4-1/2 double-spaced pages. His treatments of the Supreme Court decisions in Morrison v. Olson, Wiener v. United States, and the grandfather of them all, Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, are largely superficial.  In Judge Berman’s view, the fact that ALJ’s perform their executive duties as part of an adjudicative process insulates them from the need for control or influence by the Chief Executive.  He makes no real effort to examine the constitutional consequences of exempting large numbers of Executive Department officers from the need for Presidential control, and fails even to address the conundrum of treating an Executive Department officer within a law enforcement agency as if he or she were just another judge.  The nuances of how to accord administrative judges the freedom to act as an independent judicial branch within a powerful law enforcement department of the Executive Branch are basically ignored.  In sum, the effort lacks the depth and studiousness of an opinion likely to persuade appellate courts, and possibly other district courts as well.  It may well be that a proper, complete, and thorough argument along these lines can be made, but it is not reflected in this opinion.

Judge Berman effectively creates an adjudicative exception to the need for Presidential control over “inferior officers” involved in an adjudicative process within the Executive Branch. That is, essentially, formed out of whole cloth.  His core argument — “that congressional restrictions upon the President’s ability to remove ‘quasi judicial’ agency adjudicators are unlikely to interfere with the President’s ability to perform his executive duties” — is pure ipse dixit.  Short references to Humphrey’s Executor, Wiener, and Morrison, none of which involved facts and circumstances even vaguely like this case, hardly suffice to justify such a broad-reaching conclusion.  Many of the Supreme Court decisions addressing the role of the Executive in non-Article III courts are not examined, or even mentioned. Included among these is the separation of powers discussion in Freytag v. Commissioner, which Judge Berman acknowledged in the first part of his opinion and ignored thereafter (Freytag has an extensive discussion of the separation of powers implications of performing adjudicative functions outside in non-Article III courts).  Since Free Enterprise Fund plainly treats the SEC as an Executive Department, and there is abundant case law addressing the constitutional treatment of non-Article III courts, an in-depth analysis of those cases would seem necessary before reaching Judge Berman’s conclusions. I haven’t delved into those cases any more than he does (which is to say, not at all), but I’m certain that a reasoned resolution of the issue requires a lot more spade work than I see reflected in Judge Berman’s four pages on the issue.

Judge Berman’s decision also proceeds on the assumption that it is not important – and, indeed, could be harmful – for the President to be able to exercise authority over officials within the Executive Branch who perform adjudicative-like functions. That fails totally to consider the context in which the SEC ALJs function.  Judge Berman seems to think all ALJs perform the same kind of function, and none of them do things the Chief Executive cares much about.  But some ALJs, like those in the SEC, are critical cogs in a law enforcement process addressing large portions of the Nation’s economic and financial infrastructure.  They play a critical role in an Executive process to enforce the law, and exercise considerable discretion in doing so, without any direct supervisors.  The SEC’s enforcement actions already proceed with, at best, limited input from, or control by, the President. To the contrary, the SEC touts itself as being “independent” of the President.  If the SEC’s ALJs are, indeed, executive officers playing key roles in implementing a quintessentially executive function – the enforcement of the laws – why does the fact that ALJs follow an adjudicative-like process as part of that function mean they should be doubly insulated from Presidential influence? Judge Berman effectively postulates this as a necessary aspect of having an agency-based adjudicatory function, but the stated support for that – even if it is a law review article by Elena Kagan — is slim indeed, putting aside whether the very concept of an independent judiciary, functioning within an independent law enforcement agency, has any place in Articles I, II, or III of the Constitution.

There also is no mention or apparent consideration of potential Appointments Clause issues in this context. That may well be because Ms. Duka’s counsel never pressed those issues.  But if the SEC’s ALJs are officers of the Executive Branch, the Appointments Clause applies, and it is not at all clear whether the appointment process for SEC ALJs complies with that process.

Conclusion

To be sure, this decision represents a victory for the SEC in another battle in this campaign.  The loss on the jurisdiction issue is more than outweighed by the favorable ruling on the merits issue.  (Although it may encourage the DC Circuit to reach the merits of the constitutional issue in the recently-argued appeal in Jarkesy v. SEC).  The approach taken by the court does suggest that the SEC may not fare well in its arguments that its administrative law judges are not “inferior officers,” but the overall rejection of the Free Enterprise Fund double-insulation theory provides the groundwork for future SEC arguments on the merits in other courts.  One of those courts may take the time and make the effort to provide a more thorough consideration of the merits issue, but for now, count this as a significant, if not definitive, victory for the Commission.

Straight Arrow

April 16, 2015

Contact Straight Arrow privately here, or leave a public comment below: