Jump to content
ADVANCED CASE SEARCH
An affiliate of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce
Whether administrative law judges of the Securities and Exchange Commission are Officers of the United States within the meaning of the Appointments Clause.
The Supreme Court issued a favorable 6-3 decision holding that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) violated the Appointments Clause of the Constitution in naming administrative law judges (ALJs) to decide enforcement proceedings before the SEC.
The decision holds that the SEC’s ALJs are “officers” of the United States subject to the Appointments Clause of the Constitution, because ALJs have an ongoing position in the government that exercises significant governmental authority. Because they are officers, the SEC’s ALJs must be appointed by the head of their department (the Chairman of the SEC).
Click here to view the Chamber’s amicus brief.
Andrew J. Pincus and Karen W. Lin of Mayer Brown LLP served as co-counsel for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce on behalf of the U.S. Chamber Litigation Center.
The U.S. Chamber urges the Supreme Court to review whether the SEC's method of appointing administrative law judges (“ALJs”) violates the Constitution's Appointments Clause. The Tenth Circuit held that SEC ALJs are “inferior officers” who were not constitutionally appointed, while the D.C. Circuit held that SEC ALJs are employees not subject to the Appointments Clause.
The Chamber’s amicus brief argued that SEC ALJs qualify as “inferior officers” because they exercise significant authority pursuant to the laws of the United States.
