Supreme Court ruling on SEC agency

8,189 Views | 71 Replies | Last: 5 mo ago by agracer
BAP Enthusiast
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:12a, 5/19/22


This appears pretty monumental. Has anyone read the ruling? Based upon the above this effectively means that all federal government agencies that have been creating laws and regulations have been doing it unconstitutionally. This was always true obviously but the 5th Circuit apparently just ruled on it and sided against the SEC.

What are the implications of this? Could it be spread to the EPA and other federal agencies?

Edit - 5th circuit not Supreme Court
Reply Quote
66
1 edit
riverrataggie
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:13a, 5/19/22
AG
Man I hope this is true.
Reply Quote
77
CREAg87
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:14a, 5/19/22
AG
Hope it has negative implications for the ATF
Keep your rifle by your side
Reply Quote
103
Science Denier
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:14a, 5/19/22
AG
LMAO!!

You mean Congress actually has to pass laws now? Dictator in chief can't do that?

ULTRA MAGA BABY!!!!
LOL OLD
Reply Quote
127
Maroon Dawn
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:15a, 5/19/22
AG
Good

Laws should be created by the people's representatives

Not by faceless unelected bureaucrats all loyal to the Deep State and global Marxism

Executive agencies should only exist to enforce the laws Congress makes, not create their own rules to then enforce
Reply Quote
120
2 edits
bmc13
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to CREAg87 • 8:16a, 5/19/22
AG
CREAg87 said:
Hope it has negative implications for the ATF
Reply Quote
16
Rapier108
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:16a, 5/19/22
5th Circuit, not the Supreme Court
"If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves." - Sir Winston Churchill
Reply Quote
18
Jason C.
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:17a, 5/19/22
AG
Ken Paxton rejoices haha.

Also Clarence Thomas waiting to vote to uphold this one like:

Reply Quote
79
WolfCall
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:18a, 5/19/22
AG
I haven't seen this. I hope it is true and that it applies to all federal agencies.

Regulations, which have the force and effect of law, should be promulgated to reflect what is stated in the laws passed by Congress. And, regulations should not expand on the laws passed by Congress.

You voted for this because you didn't like Mean Tweets?!
Reply Quote
37
TRM
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BAP Enthusiast • 8:19a, 5/19/22
AG
Not SCOTUS but the 5th Circuit made that ruling. I believe SCOTUS is taking up a case against the SEC soon.
Reply Quote
2
BAP Enthusiast
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Rapier108 • 8:19a, 5/19/22
Rapier108 said:
5th Circuit, not the Supreme Court


Ah, oops my mistake.

Staff - would you correct the title?
Reply Quote
3
Sarge 91
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:20a, 5/19/22
AG
Good. Anything that neuters the administrative state is a good thing.
Reply Quote
37
I am always wrong
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:21a, 5/19/22
Democrats' worst nightmare: having to actually use the legislative process to make laws.
Reply Quote
48
96ags
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to WolfCall • 8:22a, 5/19/22
AG
WolfCall said:
I haven't seen this. I hope it is true and that it applies to all federal agencies.

Regulations, which have the force and effect of law, should be promulgated to reflect what is stated in the laws passed by Congress. And, regulations should not expand on the laws passed by Congress.

The fact that we currently live in a world where there are actual people who could disagree with the bolded part still baffles me. So simple and true.
Reply Quote
44
TxTarpon
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to 96ags • 8:23a, 5/19/22
So Federal fish and game laws are null and void?!?!
Reply Quote
96ags
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TxTarpon • 8:25a, 5/19/22
AG
TxTarpon said:
So Federal fish and game laws are null and void?!?!
Please see the highlighted section.
Reply Quote
15
agracer
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TRM • 8:27a, 5/19/22
AG
TRM said:
Not SCOTUS but the 5th Circuit made that ruling. I believe SCOTUS is taking up a case against the SEC soon.
This particular case was declined by the SC earlier (I want to say the petitioner tried to fast track it to the SC but that did not happen).

In this case, the 5th circuit is basically saying the SEC does not have the right to act as judge, jury, and execution and in doing so they violated the defendants right to a jury trial.

I don't think this means the EPA is suddenly going to stop making rules/regulations as congress specifically set up the EPA to do those things and ceded that power to the Executive branch. But I'm not a lawyer so I'm sure I'm wrong here.
Reply Quote
3
CDUB98
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:37a, 5/19/22
AG
Stripping power from the bureaucracy is a very good thing.
Reply Quote
65
My Name Is Judge
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:40a, 5/19/22
Giddyup
Reply Quote
10
BusterAg
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:07a, 5/19/22
AG
The decision get's a little plucky too about the dissent:

Quote:
The dissenting opinion cannot define a "public right" without using the term itself in the definition. That leads to a good bit of question-begging. It says at times that the "SEC's enforcement action" is itself "a 'public right' because it is a case 'in which the Government sues in its sovereign capacity to enforce public rights." Post at 37. So the action is a public right because (1) the SEC is the government, and (2) it is vindicating a public right. And what is that public right being vindicated? The dissenting opinion does not say. In reality, the dissenting opinion's rule is satisfied by the first step alone: The action is itself a "public right" because the SEC is the government. And the not-so-far-removed consequences that flow from that conclusion: When the federal government sues, no jury is required. This is perhaps a runner-up in the competition for the "Nine Most Terrifying Words in the English Language." [citing Reagan "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help"] But fear not, the dissenting opinion's proposal runs headlong into Granfinanciera: "Congress cannot eliminate a party's Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial merely by relabeling the cause of action to which it attaches and placing exclusive jurisdiction in an administrative agency or a specialized court of equity" 492 U.S. at 61. With that limit in place, the dissenting opinion's bright-line rule burns out. Congress cannot change the nature of a right, thereby circumventing the Seventh Amendment, by simply giving the keys to the SEC to do the vindicating.
Reply Quote
24
Bird Poo
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to I am always wrong • 9:09a, 5/19/22
AG
Fear InoculAg said:
Democrats' worst nightmare: having to actually use the legislative process to make laws.
Don't fool yourself. Most of the GOP up there loves arguing on Fox News while pulling money from their special interests. It's a systemic problem and the GOP has looked the other way for decades.
Reply Quote
8
BusterAg
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BAP Enthusiast • 9:19a, 5/19/22
AG
My reading is a bit more narrow, if not in the same direction as your comment / question:

Quote:
Petitioners next argue that Congress unconstitutionally delegated legislative power to the SEC when it gave the SEC the unfettered authority to choose whether to bring enforcement actions in Article III courts or within the agency. Because Congress gave the SEC a significant legislative power by failing to provide it with an intelligible principle to guide its use of the delegated power, we agree with Petitioners.
The ruling is that this particular power, the power of the agency to file suit in court or handle an issue through an inter-agency tribunal, is unconstitutional because there is no direction on when the SEC should decide to do one or the other.

I think if the law was amended to say: 1) File in federal court in this case; but 2) Handle in a tribunal in this other case, then this ruling would not apply.

So the 5th circuit is saying carte blanche power is unconstitutional, not regulation delegation.

Still a strong step in the right direction. This would be a juicy one for SCOTUS to pick up.
Reply Quote
8
Get Off My Lawn
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:25a, 5/19/22
For us legal midgets - is this effectively striking a bureaucracy's self-created kangaroo court and/or court-less punishments because they didn't have the authority to isolate themselves from the appropriate legal structure?
Reply Quote
3
BMX Bandit
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Get Off My Lawn • 9:26a, 5/19/22
for this particular issue and damages sought, yes.

it does not mean that there is a right to a jury trial in any agency action.
Reply Quote
3
Fightin_Aggie
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to 96ags • 9:32a, 5/19/22
AG
96ags said:
WolfCall said:
I haven't seen this. I hope it is true and that it applies to all federal agencies.

Regulations, which have the force and effect of law, should be promulgated to reflect what is stated in the laws passed by Congress. And, regulations should not expand on the laws passed by Congress.

The fact that we currently live in a world where there are actual people who could disagree with the bolded part still baffles me. So simple and true.
I understand why, they are completely ignorant of basic civics and the reasoning behind why our country was founded and this is by design of our corrupt and worthless dept of Education!

Dept should be deleted ASAP
Reply Quote
6
aggie93
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:38a, 5/19/22
AG
Correct me if I am wrong but if the SC doesn't pick this up this makes this the law of the land for the 5th Circuit. That would have a major effect on all kinds of rules and regulations in Texas.
"The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help."

Ronald Reagan
Reply Quote
2
No Spin Ag
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to CDUB98 • 9:41a, 5/19/22
CDUB98 said:
Stripping power from the bureaucracy is a very good thing.


Now if they could next eliminate a president from being able to use Executive Orders.
There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the later ignorance. Hippocrates
Reply Quote
7
BMX Bandit
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to aggie93 • 9:41a, 5/19/22
just this type of SEC enforcement actions
Reply Quote
4
1 edit
aggie93
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BMX Bandit • 9:46a, 5/19/22
AG
BMX Bandit said:
just this type of SEC enforcement actions
That would certainly leave a huge opening for new lawsuits though to challenge environmental regulations though for instance.
"The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help."

Ronald Reagan
Reply Quote
6
Tex117
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BMX Bandit • 9:47a, 5/19/22
AG
BMX Bandit said:
just this type of SEC enforcement actions
As usual, the natives on this site can't read a legal opinion. (To be clear, this obviously does not include you).
Reply Quote
4
TxTarpon
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to 96ags • 9:47a, 5/19/22
Hang on....working on my Etsy page with golden eagle feather pens and my Peregrine Falcon bites recipe.
Reply Quote
1
BMX Bandit
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Tex117 • 9:48a, 5/19/22
Tex117 said:
BMX Bandit said:
just this type of SEC enforcement actions
As usual, the natives on this site can't read a legal opinion. (To be clear, this obviously does not include you).
why should they read a legal opinion? its a long and tedious 99% of the time. aggie93 had a question and got it answered.
Reply Quote
14
BMX Bandit
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to aggie93 • 9:49a, 5/19/22
aggie93 said:
BMX Bandit said:
just this type of SEC enforcement actions
That would certainly leave a huge opening for new lawsuits though to challenge environmental regulations though for instance.
as with most things in the law .... it depends

which environmental regulation? what was the directive to EPA from congress on that law?
Reply Quote
2
aggie93
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BMX Bandit • 10:01a, 5/19/22
AG
BMX Bandit said:
aggie93 said:
BMX Bandit said:
just this type of SEC enforcement actions
That would certainly leave a huge opening for new lawsuits though to challenge environmental regulations though for instance.
as with most things in the law .... it depends

which environmental regulation? what was the directive to EPA from congress on that law?
I agree, it's not like the EPA or every regulation goes away but it certainly makes the possibility of a lot of regulations getting rolled back far more likely.
"The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help."

Ronald Reagan
Reply Quote
3
ABATTBQ11
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to aggie93 • 10:41a, 5/19/22
AG
aggie93 said:
BMX Bandit said:
aggie93 said:
BMX Bandit said:
just this type of SEC enforcement actions
That would certainly leave a huge opening for new lawsuits though to challenge environmental regulations though for instance.
as with most things in the law .... it depends

which environmental regulation? what was the directive to EPA from congress on that law?
I agree, it's not like the EPA or every regulation goes away but it certainly makes the possibility of a lot of regulations getting rolled back far more likely.


Not really. This is a special case, and the consequences of this special case would only apply in similar cases, namely where Congress has given an agency the ability to take enforcement actions to court or handle them with internal adjudication, but has failed to direct them on when an action would be pursued in which. In this instance, the SEC is arbitrarily pursuing actions in whatever venue it deems convenient. Simply giving the EPA the ability to create and set rules and regulations is not enough to trigger that.

At least that's my understanding
Reply Quote
4
1 edit
Last Page
Page 1 of 3 ▼
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.