iTalk Inc. (fka TALK)

[beer$$money]

Could this be slowing down the ruling? U.S. Supreme Court divided over challenge to SEC in-house judges
Andrew Chung


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Supreme Court justices on Monday appeared divided over a challenge to the constitutionality of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s selection of in-house judges to enforce investor protection laws in a case involving a former radio host and investment adviser backed by the Trump administration.

The court heard arguments in an appeal by Raymond Lucia, who was given a lifetime ban from investment-related work by an SEC administrative law judge for misleading investors in his “Buckets Of Money” retirement wealth presentations. The case could expand the control by the president and political appointees over officials in various federal agencies.

California-based Lucia argued that the SEC exceeded its authority in its hiring of the judges, violating part of the U.S. Constitution that gives the president the power to appoint certain types of federal officials.

A ruling favoring Lucia could reverberate through the federal government, which has nearly 2,000 administrative judges who decide matters as varied as unfair trade practices, veterans benefits and patent infringement. Such a ruling could make it easier for these judges to be fired by political appointees.

Justices Elena Kagan and Stephen Breyer, both liberals, and Anthony Kennedy, a conservative, raised concerns about the need to protect the judges’ independence and impartiality.

Kagan suggested administrative judges might need insulation from political pressure. “You want to ratchet that down,” Kagan told Deputy Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall, arguing for the Trump administration. “Isn’t that interfering with decisional independence?”

Breyer said the government’s position that agency heads should be able to fire administrative law judges if they fail to follow agency policies might not guarantee the judges sufficient independence.

Conservative Chief Justice John Roberts suggested the judges need to be held more accountable because currently no one, neither the president nor the SEC, is responsible for their conduct or misconduct.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-sec/u-s-supreme-court-divided-over-challenge-to-sec-in-house-judges-idUSKBN1HU275


Supreme Court should limit SEC’s arbitrary legal authority
Imagine one day, after having run a successful business for 40 years without incident, the government accuses you of breaking the law. Imagine further that if the government proves its case, you could lose your company and be permanently banned from working in your chosen field. But, you might say to yourself, at least the government can’t do anything until it proves its case in court before an impartial jury. Except that’s often not true — administrative agencies routinely avoid court and instead proceed against individuals in administrative “actions” that are overseen by judges who work for the same agencies bringing the actions.

Last week the Supreme Court heard arguments in a in a case that could challenge this unaccountable way of pursuing justice. The legal issue before the court is whether administrative law judges (ALJs) of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) are “officers of the United States” within the meaning of the Constitution’s Appointments Clause, which sounds rather technical. But the case illustrates the dangers of a powerful and unaccountable government in which agencies are allowed to serve as judge, jury and executioner, so to speak, in civil enforcement actions.

http://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/384451-supreme-court-should-limit-secs-arbitrary-legal-authority