United States: D.C. Circuit Upholds Constitutionality Of SEC Administrative Proceedings

On August 9, 2016, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued Lucia v. SEC,1 a significant decision that holds that the Securities and Exchange Commission's ("SEC" or "Commission") use of administrative law judges ("ALJs") is constitutional. In so doing, the D.C. Circuit ruled that the SEC's use of ALJs does not violate the Appointments Clause of the Constitution because, rather than acting as officers of the United States, the SEC's ALJs act as employees who lack the authority to issue "final decisions." With at least one similar case pending in another Circuit,2 and a number of appeals challenging the constitutionality of Administrative Proceedings (APs) pending before the Commission itself, Lucia is an important precedent-setting decision.


In recent years, respondents have brought numerous challenges to the SEC's use of APs that asserted that the SEC's selective use of APs for some, but not all, litigated enforcement proceedings is inherently unfair. Specifically, numerous respondents filed actions in federal court seeking to preliminarily enjoin pending APs as unconstitutional before the cases were decided on the merits. While due process and equal protection challenges have generally been unsuccessful, respondents have achieved a measure of success in challenging APs on the ground that ALJs were not properly appointed pursuant to the Appointments Clause of Article II of the Constitution and, thus, could not issue decisions in APs. Under the Appointments Clause, "inferior officers," or government officials "exercising significant authority pursuant to the laws of the United States" must be appointed by the President, the federal3 courts or the heads of the federal departments. SEC ALJs are however hired as though they are mere employees of the Commission.

Prior to 2015, district courts had uniformly rejected these petitions for injunctions, largely on the grounds that federal courts did not have jurisdiction to consider the applications because respondents would have a right to appeal any final determination of the Commission following the conclusion of an AP to a federal court of appeals. In June 2015, however, in Hill v. SEC, Northern District of Georgia Judge Leigh Martin May issued a preliminary injunction halting an AP against Charles Hill on the grounds that the manner in which the ALJ was appointed likely violated the Appointments Clause. In August 2015, Judge May enjoined a second AP for the same reasons in Gray Financial Group v. SEC4. Later that August, Judge Richard Berman of the Southern District of New York reached a similar conclusion in Duka v. SEC, holding not only that district courts had jurisdiction to consider applications for 5preliminary injunctions of APs, but also preliminarily enjoined the Duka AP5.

In the past two months, however, these successful challenges to the SEC's use of APs have been undone, although not on the merits. First, on June 1, 2016, in Tilton v. SEC, a divided Second Circuit panel affirmed the dismissal of a constitutional challenge to an AP for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Tilton appeared to conflict with Judge Berman's ruling in Duka, and shortly after Tilton was issued, the Second Circuit resolved the potentially inconsistent decisions by issuing an order that vacated and remanded Duka for further proceedings consistent with Tilton. On June 17, 2016, the Eleventh Circuit similarly reversed Judge May's decisions in Hill and Gray Financial Group,6 citing D.C. Circuit,7 Seventh Circuit8 and Second Circuit9 cases holding that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction.

While this string of Circuit court decisions appears to have resolved the jurisdictional question, at least three other cases involving constitutional challenges to APs have been brought by respondents as part of their appeal of final decisions in APs.10 Lucia v. SEC is the first of these actions to reach a decision. The SEC had argued that ALJs were not required to be appointed pursuant to the Appointments Clause because they lack the authority to be "inferior officers." In other words, since SEC Commissioners review and finalize every ALJ decision, ALJs are mere SEC employees. Defendants challenging APs, on the other hand, contend that because the ALJs are primary fact finders whose decisions are reviewed deferentially by SEC Commissioners, the ALJs possess the decision-making authority to qualify as "inferior officers" under Article II, and because ALJs are not appointed by the President, SEC Commissioners, or a federal court, challengers argued that their appointment is unconstitutional.

The Facts of Lucia v. SEC

The Lucia decision centers on an SEC administrative enforcement action against Raymond J. Lucia and his investment company, Raymond J. Lucia Companies, Inc., for alleged violations of anti-fraud provisions of the Investment Advisers Act. Specifically, the SEC alleged that petitioners had deceptively presented their "Buckets of Money" retirement wealth-management strategy to prospective clients. As part of its enforcement action, on September 5, 2012, the SEC ordered an ALJ to conduct a public hearing on these allegations.11 On July 8, 2013, the ALJ issued an initial decision finding Lucia and his company liable on one of the four misrepresentations.12 The ALJ imposed a fine of $300,000 and a lifetime ban from the industry on Lucia. After Lucia and his company brought a motion to correct alleged factual errors by the ALJ, the ALJ conducted further fact finding and issued a revised initial decision on December 6, 2013.13 Lucia and his company appealed this revised decision to the Commission, which conducted an independent review and found that Lucia and his company had violated the Investment Advisers Act and imposed the same sanctions as the presiding ALJ. The Commission also rejected petitioners' argument that the AP was unconstitutional because the appointment of the presiding ALJ did not comply with the Appointments Clause. The Commission relied on the D.C. Circuit's decision in Landry v. FDIC14 in concluding that its ALJs are employees, not officers in a constitutional sense, and that their appointment is therefore not covered by the Appointments Clause.

The D.C. Circuit's Opinion

The D.C. Circuit affirmed the Commission's decision. Citing Tucker v. Commissioner, Internal Revenue,15 the D.C. Circuit held that the primary criteria for distinguishing between inferior officers and employees not covered by the Appointments Clause are: "(1) the significance of the matters resolved by the officials, (2) the discretion they exercise in reaching their decisions, and (3) the finality of those decisions."16 In Tucker, the D.C. Circuit held that an employee of the IRS Office of Appeals was not an officer because certain regulatory restraints resulted in a lack of discretion required by the second prong of the Tucker test. Similarly, in Landry v. FDIC,17 the D.C. Circuit held that ALJs at the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation ("FDIC") were not Officers because FDIC regulations limited their ability to make final decisions, which failed the third prong of the Tucker test.

Though the Lucia court was careful to note that its decision in Landry did not resolve the constitutional status of ALJs for all agencies, it nonetheless relied heavily on the logic of that decision. The D.C. Circuit in Lucia analyzed the statutory and regulatory framework underpinning the powers of Commission ALJs, and came to the conclusion that Commission ALJs do not have the power to issue final decisions. Petitioners argued that because the delegating statute "contemplates that the ALJ's initial decision becomes final in at least some circumstances when Commission review is declined," Commission ALJs should therefore be viewed as having the authority to make final decisions.18 The D.C. Circuit rejected this argument, noting that the same statutory provision on which petitioners relied also authorized the Commission to establish its delegation and review scheme through agency rulemaking.19 Under the review scheme established by the agency's rules, "the initial decision [by the ALJ] becomes final when, and only when, the Commission issues the finality order," an affirmative act which must occur in every case.20 The D.C. Circuit noted that "the Commission has retained full decision-making powers, and the mere passage of time is not enough to establish finality."21 Furthermore, the court noted that "even when there is not full review by the Commission, it is the act of issuing the finality order that makes the initial decision the action of the Commission within the meaning of the delegation statute."22

What Is the Significance of Lucia?

As the first circuit court opinion to substantively address the constitutionality of the use of ALJs by the SEC, the D.C. Circuit's opinion in Lucia has the potential to be an important precedent-setting decision. In recent years, even as district courts have found more frequently that the Commission's use of ALJs violated the Appointments Clause, circuit courts addressing appeals from these decisions have reversed all decisions on jurisdictional grounds. This decision, however, is a clear statement supporting the constitutionality of the Commission's use of ALJs, a statement that is even stronger given that it emanates from the D.C. Circuit. The decision could also herald an increase in the use of APs by the SEC, even in the face of continued public criticism about perceived unfairness.


1  No. 15-1345, slip op. (D.C. Cir. Aug. 9, 2016).

Bandimere v. SEC, No. 15-9586 (10th Cir. filed Dec. 22, 2015).

Freytag v. C.I.R., 501 U.S. 868, 881 (1991), citing Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 126, n.162 (1976).

Gray Financial Group v. SEC, No. 15-cv-0492-LMM (N.D. Ga. Aug. 5, 2015).

Duka v. SEC, 124 F. Supp. 3d 287 (S.D.N.Y. 2015).

Hill v. SEC, No. 15-12831, slip op. (11th Cir. June 17, 2016).

See Jarkesy v. SEC, 803 F.3d 9 (D.C. Cir. 2015).

See Bebo v. SEC, 799 F.3d 765 (7th Cir. 2015).

See Tilton, et al. v. SEC, No. 15-2103, 2016 WL 3084795 (2d Cir. June 1, 2016).

10  Timbervest LLC v. SEC, No. 15-1416 (D.C. Cir. filed Nov. 13, 2015); Bandimere v. SEC, No. 15-9586 (10th Cir. filed Dec. 22, 2015).

11  Raymond J. Lucia Cos., Inc., Exchange Act Release No. 67781, 2012 WL 3838150 (Sep. 5, 2012).

12  Raymond J. Lucia Cos., Inc., Initial Decision Release No. 495, 2013 WL 3379719 (July 8, 2013).

13  Raymond J. Lucia Cos., Inc., Initial Decision Release No. 540, 2013 WL 6384274 (Dec. 6, 2013).

14  204 F.3d 1125 (D.C. Cir. 2000).

15  676 F.3d 1129 (D.C. Cir. 2012).

16  Id. at 1133.

17  204 F.3d at 1134.

18  No. 15-1345, slip op. at *11 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 9, 2016).

19  Id. at 11-12.

20  Id. at *13 (emphasis added).

21  Id.

22  Id.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions