Berman

Subscribe to Berman via RSS

We blogged last week about a New York federal court’s decision in Duka v. SEC conditionally sustaining a facial challenge to an administrative enforcement proceeding conducted by Administrative Law Judges (“ALJs”) of the Securities and Exchange Commission. In that case, Judge Richard M. Berman, of the Southern District of New York, held that SEC ALJs are “inferior officers” of the United States for purposes of the U.S. Constitution’s Appointments Clause and that the ALJs at issue had not been appointed by the SEC Commissioners, in seeming violation of that constitutional provision. However, the court gave the SEC seven days to cure the defect “by having the SEC Commissioners issue an appointment or preside over the matter themselves.”

The SEC refused to take the bait. The SEC informed the court on August 10, 2015 that the Commission has already heard argument on the constitutional challenge in at least one proceeding, but has not yet issued a decision or taken any other action.

A federal District Judge in the Southern District of New York appears to have conditionally sustained a facial challenge to an administrative enforcement proceeding conducted by Administrative Law Judges (“ALJs”) of the Securities and Exchange Commission. In an August 3, 2015 decision in Duka v. SEC, 1:15-cv-00357, Judge Richard M. Berman held that he had subject-matter jurisdiction to entertain the plaintiff’s application to enjoin the administrative proceedings, that SEC ALJs are “inferior officers” of the United States for purposes of the U.S. Constitution’s Appointments Clause, and that the ALJs at issue had not been appointed by the SEC Commissioners in seeming violation of the Appointments Clause. However, the court gave the SEC seven days to cure the defect “by having the SEC Commissioners issue an appointment or preside over the matter themselves.”