United States: Tenth Circuit Decision Creates Split As To Constitutionality Of SEC's Administrative Law Judge Appointment Procedure

On December 27, 2016, in Bandimere v. SEC,1 the Tenth Circuit held that SEC administrative law judges (ALJs), who preside over the agency's civil administrative proceedings, are "inferior officers" within the meaning of the Appointments Clause of the Constitution, and that the manner in which they are installed in office by the Commission violates the Clause. Bandimere directly conflicts with an earlier decision by the D.C. Circuit, which held that SEC ALJs are not inferior officers subject to the requirements of the Appointments Clause.2 Barring any changes in how ALJs are chosen, this circuit split may ultimately be resolved by the Supreme Court.

The Appointments Clause states:

[The President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint ... Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.3

Thus, if an agency appointee is deemed an "inferior officer," the officer must be appointed by the president, a court of law or the head of a department, such as the chair of the SEC. If, however, an appointee is deemed an "employee" or other "lesser functionary," he or she may be placed in office through other procedures decided upon by the agency. For example, the SEC hires ALJs through the Office of Personnel Management; OPM presents the agency with three candidates, one of whom the SEC's chief ALJ selects, subject to approval by the SEC's Office of Human Resources. Courts have held that the inferior officer vs. mere "employee" assessment depends upon the level of authority the appointee possesses, the discretion he or she exercises, and the nature of his or her duties.

Bandimere stems from a 2012 administrative enforcement action alleging violations of the securities laws. Following a trial-like hearing, an SEC ALJ found Bandimere liable and ordered relief including disgorgement and civil penalties. On appeal to the Commission, Bandimere maintained that the ALJ who presided over his case was an inferior officer subject to the Appointments Clause, whose appointment pursuant to the SEC procedure with OPM had therefore been unconstitutional. The SEC affirmed the ALJ's decision, concluding that the ALJ was an employee, not an inferior officer.4

The Tenth Circuit reversed, relying on the Supreme Court's 1991 decision in Freytag v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue,5 which held that the Tax Court's special trial judges are inferior officers subject to the Appointments Clause. Citing the criteria underlying the Supreme Court's Freytag decision, the Tenth Circuit noted that SEC ALJs occupy a position "established by law;" "the[ir] duties, salary, and means of appointment are specified by statute;" and they "exercise significant discretion in carrying out important functions" that are "adjudicative," as opposed to "ministerial tasks."6 The Bandimere panel, therefore, concluded that SEC ALJs, like the Tax Court judges in Freytag, are inferior officers whose appointment is subject to the

As noted, the Tenth Circuit's decision conflicts with the D.C. Circuit's 2016 decision in Raymond J. Lucia Companies, Inc. v. SEC, in which the court held that SEC ALJs are agency employees. The Lucia panel reached this conclusion on the ground that SEC ALJs do not have the power to issue final decisions in administrative actions. Rather, the Commission must affirmatively act in every case presided over by an ALJ – either by issuing its own decision or by declining to grant review of an ALJ's decision, and (in either case) by issuing a final order concluding the matter. Absent such action by the Commission, the ALJs' administrative decisions are not final or binding on the agency. The Lucia panel considered this limitation dispositive, establishing in the court's view that ALJs are mere employees, not inferior officers subject to the Appointments Clause.

The Tenth Circuit in Bandimere disagreed with the D.C. Circuit's finality analysis, concluding instead that, pursuant to Freytag, whether or not an official is an inferior officer rests not on the ability to exercise final decision-making power, but rather on whether the officer exercises discretion in the performance of significant duties. In dissent, Judge McKay cautioned that the Tenth Circuit's "sweeping" decision "carries repercussions that will throw out of balance the teeter-totter approach to determining which of all the federal officials are subject to the Appointments Clause." The dissent warned that "all federal ALJs [may be] declared inferior officers," and that "thousands of administrative actions" may be "effectively rendered invalid" as a result of the decision.

In addition to Appointments Clause challenges, beginning with Gupta v. SEC in 2011, respondents in SEC administrative actions have asserted that such proceedings suffer from a number of constitutional deficiencies.7 Respondents have invoked, most often, the due process clause (the SEC's administrative procedures are inadequate), as well as the equal protection clause (e.g., in Gupta, in which Judge Jed Rakoff denied the Commission's motion to dismiss the complaint, citing a "well-developed public record of Gupta being treated substantially disparately from 28 essentially identical defendants [who were charged in federal district court]"). Many of these challenges, subsequent to Gupta , have failed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, on the basis that the issues were required to be raised first, and exhausted, in the administrative proceeding, at which time an appeal to the Circuit Court of Appeals would lie. See, e.g., Hill v. SEC;8 Tilton v. SEC;9 Jarkesy v. SEC;10 Bebo v. SEC.;11 Bennett v. SEC.12  Because Bandimere had gone through the entirety of the SEC administrative process and had advanced his Appointments Clause argument there, the Tenth Circuit clearly had jurisdiction, on appeal from the Commission, to address the claim.

The D.C. Circuit is currently considering whether to review Lucia en banc, which the SEC has opposed. The SEC has not indicated if it will, in turn, seek en banc review in Bandimere, or ask the Tenth Circuit to hold the decision in abeyance while it seeks Supreme Court review.13


1 No. 15-9586, 2016 WL 439007 (10th Cir. Dec. 27, 2016).
2 Raymond J. Lucia Companies, Inc. v. SEC,  832 F.3d 277 (D.C. Cir. 2016).
3 U.S. Const. art. II. § 2, cl. 2.
4 The Commission acknowledged that its ALJs were not appointed in conformance with the requirements of the Appointments Clause.
5 501 U.S. 868 (1991).
6 The Bandimere panel cited, as significant functions performed by SEC ALJs, the ALJs' authority to issue subpoenas, control document production and depositions, rule on procedural and dispositive motions; enter default judgments, take testimony, rule on the admissibility of evidence; receive evidence, make credibility determinations during the course of trial-like hearings, and issue initial decisions on liability and impose sanctions.
7 796 F. Supp. 2d 503 (S.D.N.Y. 2011). Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel represented Mr. Gupta in his successful federal court challenge.
8 825 F.3d 1236 (11th Cir. 2016).
9 824 F.3d 276 (2d Cir. 2016) (Appointments Clause challenge to SEC ALJs, although raised in the administrative proceeding, dismissed as unexhausted).
10 803 F.3d 9 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (equal protection clause challenge based on the SEC "choos[ing] whether to bring cases in administrative proceedings or in federal court on a case-by-case basis" dismissed for lack of jurisdiction).
11 799 F.3d 765 (7th Cir. 2015), cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 1500, 194 L. Ed. 2d 588 (2016) (challenge to the SEC's "unguided authority to choose which respondents will and which will not receive the procedural protections of a federal district court, in violation of equal protection and due process guarantees" dismissed for lack of jurisdiction).
12 No. 15-2584, 2016 WL 7321231 (4th Cir. Dec. 16, 2016) (Appointments Clause challenge to SEC ALJs not adjudicated in administrative proceeding dismissed for lack of jurisdiction). 
13 These constitutional challenges to the SEC's enforcement proceedings have arisen in light of the SEC's expanded authority under the Dodd-Frank Act in 2010, which authorized the Commission to impose monetary penalties in administrative proceedings on persons not associated with entities registered with the Commission. Prior to Dodd-Frank, only federal courts had this power. This change has contributed to a significant increase in the Commission's use of the in-house forum, where it has had a markedly greater success rate. According to a Wall Street Journal article, during the period October 2010 to March 2015, the SEC won 90% of all cases brought in-house, as compared with 69% in federal court.  See Jean Eaglesham, "SEC Wins With In-House Judges, " Wall St. J., May 6, 2015. 

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
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton
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