In a Thursday ruling, the Supreme Court placed new restrictions on the ability of federal agencies to charge a person or company with a violation, and to adjudicate that violation if the punishment includes monetary fines.
The decision in Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy is the latest in a string of cases where the court has pared back the power of federal agencies. Limiting the ability of agencies to issue regulations and, now, prosecute certain legal offenses is a hallmark of the court’s nearly four-year-old conservative supermajority.
This case came about after the SEC charged conservative radio host George Jarkesy Jr. with securities fraud for alleged improper reporting regarding two investment funds that he ran. An internal SEC adjudication process found him guilty and imposed a fine of $300,000 in 2013.
In response, Jarkesy sued, claiming that the agency’s ability to both charge him and conduct an administrative judicial proceeding violated his Seventh Amendment right to a trial by jury.
In a 6-3 decision written by Chief Justice John Roberts, the court ruled that when the agency sought civil penalties for alleged fraud, the defendant was entitled to a jury trial under the Seventh Amendment.
“This case poses a straightforward question: whether the Seventh Amendment entitles a defendant to a jury trial when the SEC seeks civil penalties against him for securities fraud,” Roberts wrote. “The threshold issue is whether this action implicates the Seventh Amendment. It does. The SEC’s antifraud provisions replicate common law fraud, and it is well established that common law claims must be heard by a jury.”
The court’s decision could have significant ramifications across the federal government as numerous agencies run internal adjudications that can result in fines. Agencies like the Federal Trade Commission, Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Environmental Protection Agency may now see their adjudication processes upended by the court’s decision.