| Submit your comments on this article |
| -Lurid Crime Tales- |
| U.S. Supreme Court Holds that Federal District Courts Have Jurisdiction to Hear Challenges to Unconstitutional Aspects of Federal Agencies' Administrative Proceedings |
| 2023-04-14 |
| [NCLAlegal] In an historic ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court this morning held that Texas Accountant Michelle Cochran has the right to challenge the constitutionality of her Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) removal protections in federal court before undergoing an administrative adjudication. Writing unanimously for the Court, Justice Kagan’s opinion stated, “The statutory review schemes set out in the Securities Exchange Act and Federal Trade Commission Act do not displace a district court’s federal-question jurisdiction over claims challenging as unconstitutional the structure or existence of the SEC or FTC.” “The ordinary statutory review scheme,” she wrote, “does not preclude a district court from entertaining these extraordinary claims.” The New Civil Liberties Alliance, a nonpartisan, nonprofit civil rights group, which represents Ms. Cochran in Securities and Exchange Commission, et al. v. Michelle Cochran, commends the court for a decision that will allow our client to plead her case before a real Article III federal court rather than be subjected to an endless series of unlawful agency hearings. Michelle Cochran’s path to the U.S. Supreme Court began when she filed suit in federal district court to enjoin the SEC’s second round of administrative enforcement proceedings against her. Though SEC fixed the appointment problem Lucia v. SEC addressed, Ms. Cochran’s ALJ remained unconstitutional because SEC ALJs still enjoy multiple layers of “for cause” removal protection, a problem Lucia declined to reach and that SEC could not fix on its own—because the insulations from removal are statutory. NCLA also asserted that SEC violated Ms. Cochran’s due process rights by failing to adhere to its own rules and procedures. The Supreme Court held that Ms. Cochran’s removal power claim, wholly collateral to the Exchange Act’s statutory-review scheme, is outside the SEC’s “sphere of expertise.” Justice Kagan emphasized this point, highlighting that Ms. Cochran’s claims “cannot receive meaningful judicial review through the … Exchange Act.” Relying on the Supreme Court’s Thunder Basin Coal Co. v. Reich precedent, the Court held, “All three Thunder Basin factors thus point in the same direction—toward allowing district court review of Axon’s and Cochran’s claims that the structure, or even existence, of an agency violates the Constitution.” In a strong concurring opinion, Justice Thomas wrote separately to express his “grave doubts about the constitutional propriety of Congress vesting administrative agencies with primary authority to adjudicate core private rights with only deferential judicial review on the back end.” Justice Thomas stated that if private rights are at stake—as they are in Ms. Cochran’s case—“the Constitution likely requires plenary Article III adjudication.” Justice Gorsuch wrote separately to say this case should have been decided solely on statutory grounds. He criticized the Court’s superimposing of a judicially created and hard to administer Thunder Basin balancing test on top of Congress’s text, and he pointed out how such a test had caused Ms. Cochran to suffer. Nonetheless, NCLA believes today’s unanimous ruling, strong concurrence from Justice Thomas and strong concurrence in the judgment from Justice Gorsuch, will protect the civil liberty of citizens, like Ms. Cochran, to access federal courts when federal administrative agencies violate constitutional constraints on their power. |
| Posted by:DarthVader |
| #2 "So we don't have to deal with it!" |
| Posted by: Skidmark 2023-04-14 22:54 |
| #1 Like the out of the blue ATF, EPA, and/or DOJ/FBI redefining of words and items to meet political agenda driven reg's. That are in clear violation of the US Constitution and the PEOPLE's OWNED Bill Of Rights. |
| Posted by: NN2N1 2023-04-14 17:39 |