United States: Sokenu Authors Article On Constitutionality Of SEC Administrative Proceedings

Previously published in New York Law Journal on September 6.

The Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC) selective use of administrative proceedings (AP) for some, but not all, litigated enforcement actions has been the subject of significant public criticism in recent years. Respondents have brought numerous challenges to the SEC's use of APs arguing that the SEC's selective use of the proceedings is inherently unfair. Respondents achieved a measure of success in 2015 by challenging APs on the ground that administrative law judges (ALJs) were not properly appointed pursuant to the Appointments Clause of Article II of the Constitution and, thus, could not issue decisions in APs.1

On Aug. 9, 2016, however, a threejudge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued Lucia v. SEC,2 which roundly rejected the respondent's challenge and held the SEC's use of ALJs constitutional. As the first appellate decision to address the constitutionality of the SEC's appointment of ALJs, the D.C. Circuit's opinion could embolden the commission to continue its use of APs in litigated enforcement actions. Petitions for Injunctions Prior to 2015, district courts had uniformly rejected petitions for injunctions of APs on due process and equal protection grounds. These courts held 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.

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 federal courts or the heads of the federal departments.3 SEC ALJs, however, are hired as though they are employees of the commission. In Hill, Judge May first held that a district court had jurisdiction to consider the plaintiffs' petition for an injunction, and later concluded that ALJs were improperly acting as inferior officers without having been appointed by the commission itself as required by the Appointments Clause. In August 2015, May enjoined a second AP for the same reasons in Gray Financial Group v. SEC.4 Later that August, Judge Richard Berman of the Southern District of New York reached a similar conclusion in Duka v. SEC.5

These successful challenges to the SEC's use of APs were subsequently 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 consideration consistent with Tilton. On June 17, 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit similarly reversed Judge May's decisions in Hill and Gray Financial Group,6 citing D.C. Circuit,7 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit8 and U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit9 cases holding that district courts lack subject-matter jurisdiction to consider preliminarily enjoining APs given that the AP respondents would have a right to circuit court review following any final determination by the commission.

Addressing Constitutionality

While these appellate decisions appear to have resolved the jurisdictional question, Lucia v. SEC is the first appellate opinion to substantively address the constitutionality of the SEC's appointment of ALJs. The SEC had argued that ALJs are 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 merely SEC employees. Respondents challenging APs, on the other hand, characterized ALJs as primary factfinders whose decisions are reviewed deferentially by SEC commissioners and thus possess the decision-making authority to qualify as "inferior officers." Because ALJs are not appointed by the president, SEC commissioners or a federal court, the respondents argued that their appointment is unconstitutional.

The Lucia decision arises out of 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 of 1940 (the Advisers Act). After conducting a public hearing, the presiding ALJ imposed a fine of $300,000 and a lifetime industry ban 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.

Lucia and his company appealed to the commission, which conducted an independent review and found that Lucia and his company had violated the Advisers Act and imposed the same sanctions as the presiding ALJ. Relying on the D.C. Circuit's opinion in Landry v. FDIC,10 the commission rejected the petitioner's argument that the AP was unconstitutional because the appointment of the presiding ALJ did not comply with the Appointments Clause.

The D.C. Circuit affirmed the commission's decision. Citing Tucker v. Commissioner, Internal Revenue,11 the court 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."12 In Tucker, the court 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,13 the D.C. Circuit held that ALJs at the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) were not inferior 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 court 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.14 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.15

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.16 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."17 Furthermore, the court noted that "even when there is [no] 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."18


The SEC's increased use of APs in litigated enforcement actions has been subject to strong public criticism. The commission's overwhelming record of success in APs, combined with a former ALJ's claim that she had been pressured to favor the SEC, has only fueled claims that the SEC prefers APs because ALJs favor the commission. After a former SEC ALJ claimed in a May 6, 2015, Wall Street Journal article that she felt pressured by the chief ALJ to favor the commission, the SEC's Office of Inspector General (OIG) investigated these claims.19 The OIG report, released on Jan. 21, 2016, found no bias by ALJs. Nevertheless, respondents have continued to challenge the constitutionality of APs on equal protection and other grounds.

Even though legal challenges to the commission's AP process have been largely unfruitful for respondents, the robust criticism of, and repeated constitutional challenges to, APs appears to have affected the SEC's forum selection process for litigating contested enforcement actions. Cornerstone's Securities Enforcement Empirical Database, a public online resource that provides data on SEC actions filed against defendants that are public companies and their subsidiaries, suggests that the commission is bringing fewer contested actions before ALJs. The agency also recently announced changes to the AP process.

Specifically, on July 13, 2016, the SEC announced that it had adopted amendments to its Rules of Practice governing APs that were originally promulgated to "modernize" the AP process. The amendments, among other things, adjust the deadlines by which an ALJ must issue an initial decision, which allow respondents more time for discovery and hearing preparation, and give the parties discretion to take limited depositions during the discovery period.

The Lucia decision is unlikely to quell public criticism of the SEC's use of APs, and the commission will likely continue its efforts to reform the process. Nonetheless, the Lucia decision represents a clear statement supporting the constitutionality of the commission's use of ALJs, and as a result could herald an increase in the use of APs by the SEC.


1. Order, Hill v. SEC, No. 15-cv-1801-LMM (N.D. Ga. June 8, 2015), ECF No. 28; Order at 35-36, Gray Financial Group v. SEC, No. 15-cv- 00492 (N.D. Ga. Aug. 4, 2015), ECF No. 56; see also Ironridge Global IV v. SEC, No. 1:15-CV- 2512-LMM (N.D. Ga. Nov. 17, 2015).

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

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

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

5. Duka v. SEC, 124 F.Supp.3d 287 (SDNY 2015).

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

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

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

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

10. 204 F.3d 1125 (D.C. Cir. 2000).

11. 676 F.3d 1129 (D.C. Cir. 2012).

12. Id. at 1133.

13. 204 F.3d at 1134.

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

15. Id. at 11-12.

16. Id. at *13 (emphasis added).

17. Id.

18. Id.

19. SEC Office of Inspector General, Report of Investigation, Case No. 15-ALJ-0482-I, (Jan. 21, 2016), https://www.sec.gov/oig/reportspubs/Final-Report-of-Investigation.pdf .

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