On June 27, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its long-awaited ruling in SEC v. Jarkesy, marking a pivotal moment in how the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and potentially other federal agencies handle civil enforcement. In a decision that significantly impacts the SEC’s enforcement approach, the Court held that when the SEC seeks civil penalties for securities fraud, defendants are entitled to a jury trial under the Seventh Amendment. Consequently, the SEC must bring these types of cases in federal court, effectively reducing its reliance on in-house administrative proceedings.

Background of the Case

The case stems from a 2013 SEC administrative proceeding against hedge fund manager George Jarkesy and his firm, Patriot28, LLC, accusing them of securities fraud. The SEC opted to pursue the matter via its administrative process, resulting in a $300,000 civil penalty against Jarkesy. However, Jarkesy challenged the constitutionality of this forum, eventually securing a favorable ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The Supreme Court affirmed that decision, stating that the SEC’s use of administrative adjudication violated Jarkesy’s Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial.

The Supreme Court’s Holding

In its opinion, the Court found that the civil monetary penalties sought by the SEC are a "prototypical common law remedy," primarily aimed at punishing and deterring wrongdoing. Thus, such claims are "legal in nature" and fall under the protection of the Seventh Amendment’s right to a jury trial. The Court also rejected the SEC's invocation of the “public rights” doctrine, which allows Congress to assign some matters to agency adjudication without a jury. Since the case involved common law claims of securities fraud—a matter of private right—the Court ruled that Jarkesy was entitled to a jury trial.

Implications for the SEC and Administrative Adjudication

The Jarkesy ruling has considerable consequences for the SEC’s enforcement program. For years, the SEC has utilized its administrative forum to pursue civil penalties for securities fraud, with the flexibility to adjudicate matters in-house. However, the Supreme Court's decision effectively eliminates this option for cases seeking civil penalties. As a result, the SEC will likely need to shift more cases to federal court, where defendants are entitled to a jury trial. This shift could increase the complexity, time, and costs associated with SEC enforcement actions.

Key Points from the Pre-Ruling Analysis

Before the Supreme Court's final decision, many experts speculated about the broader impact of an adverse ruling on SEC enforcement, raising key points that remain relevant even after the Court’s decision:

1. Federal Court Already Central to SEC Enforcement: The SEC’s enforcement program has historically relied on federal court litigation for a significant portion of its cases. Even with administrative proceedings available, the SEC has filed roughly the same number of civil cases in federal court as administrative cases. The shift from administrative adjudication to federal courts may not be as disruptive as initially thought, given the agency’s longstanding experience in civil litigation. In fact, contested actions against public companies are already predominantly brought in federal court.

2. The SEC's Advantage in Federal Court: The SEC has maintained a strong win rate in federal courts, with an 80% success rate in 2022, according to the SEC’s own statistics. While federal court cases may be more time-consuming and costly, both for the SEC and for defendants, the SEC’s nationwide subpoena power and ability to select favorable jurisdictions help it maintain a strong litigation position. As such, the agency is well-prepared to handle the increased caseload in federal courts.

3. Historical Context of SEC Administrative Proceedings: The SEC’s administrative proceedings, which expanded significantly after the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010, allowed the agency to pursue monetary penalties in-house—an option not available before 1990. This post-Dodd-Frank shift drew criticism for creating an unfair advantage for the SEC, as administrative proceedings were seen as less favorable to defendants compared to federal courts. The Jarkesy ruling will curtail the SEC’s use of these proceedings, but the agency has ample experience navigating federal courts.

4. Challenges Facing Other Agencies: While the SEC has the flexibility to bring cases in federal court, other regulatory agencies that rely solely on administrative proceedings, such as the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (OSHRC), may face more significant challenges in the wake of Jarkesy. The ruling raises broader constitutional questions about the legality of agency adjudications across the federal government, with some predicting that the decision could “cripple” the modern administrative state.

5. Nuanced Implications for SEC Enforcement: Some experts believe that the Jarkesy decision could influence the SEC’s strategy in selecting cases to litigate. While the ruling may require the agency to litigate in federal court more frequently, it may also lead to more settlements, as defendants weigh the costs and risks of jury trials. Although the SEC’s administrative process may have offered certain procedural advantages, the agency’s success rate in federal courts suggests that the shift may not dramatically alter its overall enforcement strategy.

Future of SEC Enforcement and Regulatory Adjudication

The Jarkesy decision will undoubtedly lead to significant changes in the SEC’s enforcement program. However, as predicted in earlier analyses, the ruling is unlikely to cripple the SEC's ability to pursue enforcement actions. The agency will continue to utilize federal court litigation, where it has a strong track record of success. Moreover, the SEC’s enforcement agenda, under current leadership, remains aggressive, with an emphasis on holding individuals and companies accountable for violations of securities laws.

That said, the decision may have broader implications for other regulatory agencies that depend on administrative adjudications. While the Jarkesy ruling primarily impacts the SEC, its reasoning could invite challenges to administrative adjudications across the federal government. These challenges may lead to a broader reevaluation of the constitutional limits of agency power, potentially altering the landscape of administrative law in the years to come.

In summary, while the Jarkesy decision is a watershed moment for securities enforcement, its full impact—both on the SEC and the broader regulatory environment—will unfold over time as federal courts, agencies, and defendants adjust to the new legal framework. The ruling serves as a reminder that the balance of power between regulators and those they oversee is continually evolving, with significant implications for the future of U.S. securities law and administrative governance.

* * *

Attorney Advertising—Anderson P.C. is a U.S. law firm and provides this information as a service to clients, prospective clients, and other friends for educational purposes only. It should not be construed or relied on as legal advice or to create a lawyer-client relationship.

Anderson P.C. is a U.S. law firm dedicated to defending clients in government investigations and securities enforcement actions initiated by the SEC, FINRA, DOJ, and other regulatory bodies. We provide focused, strategic counsel and regulatory guidance across the full spectrum of federal laws and regulations affecting broker-dealers, investment advisers, banks, asset managers, private funds, public companies, senior executives, and digital assets. Our deep expertise allows us to navigate complex legal challenges and deliver results-driven solutions tailored to our clients' unique needs.

If you have any questions or need legal assistance related to government investigations, securities enforcement actions, or regulatory compliance, please don't hesitate to contact us. Our team at Anderson P.C. is here to provide the expert guidance and support you need to navigate these complex challenges.