The Protection of the Right to a Jury but the Curtailment of Agency Power
Perhaps one of the most important decisions related to the operation of the court system as well as agency adjudication was delivered this term in the SEC v. Jarkesy, 144 S. Ct. 2117 decision. Your right to a jury trial in a civil proceeding may seem like a given, but, it was not until this year, 2024, in Jarkesy, that the Supreme Court of the United States (“SCOTUS”) said so for all civil proceedings. In Jarkesy, the SCOTUS recognized a long-standing principle: Jury trials are the most appropriate way of adjudicating matters that are “legal in nature.” [1] However, Congress did not view it that way for decades. When Congress enacted the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) Congress felt all claims brought by executive agencies could be adjudicated just as effectively by the agency’s Administrative Law Judges (“ALJ”) rather than spending time in an Article III court’s docket before a jury.
For background, Jarkesy is a case that involved a defendant by the name of George Jarkesy (“Respondent” or “Mr. Jarkesy). Mr. Jarkesy managed investment funds comprising over $24 million in assets. The Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Petitioner”) began an investigation of Mr. Jarkesy and his firm, Patriot28 in 2008. [2] Eventually, the SEC pursued civil penalties against Mr. Jarkesy on the basis of alleged securities fraud pursuant to multiple statutes. The main controversy of this matter pertains to how the Respondent’s case was adjudicated. Respondent preferred that this case be handled before an Article III court so a jury may have a crack at the facts and weigh all the evidence presented. However, the US District Court felt this matter in the eyes of Congress should ideally be adjudicated before an ALJ. Therefore, Mr. Jarkesy was denied his day in court. There are a few differences between an Article III court and an administrative hearing. First, rather than the jury being the trier of fact, the ALJ is the one that makes factual findings and determinations. The ALJ’s are appointed by the heads of the very executive agency that is pursuing the civil penalties which calls into questions the neutrality of the ALJ.
Due to the claims raised by the SEC being legal in nature as well as punitive, the SCOTUS held Mr. Jarkesy’s matter is a textbook case that calls for a jury trial. Jarkesy reminds us of the integral role a jury plays in weighing the evidence as it works alongside the guidance of the judge handling the law and the attorneys presenting the facts. Proceedings that aim at securing punitive penalties—regardless of who is the plaintiff, this aim calls for fairness, and a jury in common law cases of fraud are trusted to make the decision on that factual finding. The jury trial right should apply especially when the government is coming after a citizen for penalties on a common law claim. The basic fraud claims we see in Jarkesy are litigated privately among private parties every day. Same claims, same statutes, and they’ve been litigated in the courts for decades and decades. The majority further recognized the “right to trial by jury is ‘of such importance and occupies so firm a place in our history and jurisprudence that any seeming curtailment of the right’ has always been and “should be scrutinized with the utmost care.” [3]
The implications of this decision change the course of agency enforcement. Since the dawn of the APA, agencies had, for lack of a better phrase, home-field advantage when they pursued civil penalties against defendants like Mr. Jarkesy. Knowing the proceeding would be heard by an ALJ employed by the agency, absent of an impartial jury that does not have skin in the game, is quite inviting for the agency to pursue civil penalties. One might argue that this decision leveled the playing field between the agency and the private defendant. Either way, the court system will have to adjust to further take on an ever-growing docket that now includes all civil penalties initiated by executive agencies.
This decision also makes the country wonder where the curtailment of agency power will end as well as the future of agency enforcement. Justice Sotomayor brought awareness to the benefits of the system as it existed prior to Jarkesy. In her dissent, Justice Sotomayor expressed as much when writing that the use of administrative proceedings was used to provide “speedy and expert resolutions of the issues involved” [4] Regardless of where you stand on the issue, the overturning of Chevron’s Deference in the Loper Bright Enters. v. Raimondo, 144 S. Ct. 2244 decision reduced the influence the agency has on interpreting what Congress’s legislative direction was. Here, we see a continuation of the scaling back of agency power in favor of a certain constitutional principle: the right of a jury trial.
SOURCES
[1] SEC v. Jarkesy, 144 S. Ct. 2117, 2129
[2] SEC v. Jarkesy: A Groundbreaking Supreme Court Decision with Significant Implications for Securities Enforcement (June 2024)
[3] SEC v. Jarkesy, 144 S. Ct. 2117, 2128
[4] Id. at 2163
Recent Comments