The Supreme Court issued its decision in Lucia v. Securities and Exchange Commission. The problem is that the administrative law judges were appointed by an internal panel instead of by the President or the SEC Commissioners. The Appointments Clause of the Constitution is there to make sure that those who wield power are subject to “political force and the will of the people.” The President appoints “Officers” who are those who exercise “significant authority pursuant to the laws of the United States.”
Radio personality Raymond J. Lucia, Sr. got in trouble with the SEC by claiming that his “Buckets of Money” strategy had been successfully backtested when in fact it had not been. Lucia was a registered investment advisor, but the SEC barred him for his transgressions. He appealed.
The Supreme Court re-affirmed a three prong test to determine if an official is an “Officer” under the Appointments Clause:
- Holds a continuing office established by law
- Exercises significant discretion when carrying out the functions of that office
- Issues decisions with finality
The majority opinion found all three of these to be true with the SEC’s ALJs.
The concurring opinion of Justices Thomas and Gorsuch though that the determination of an “officer” merely has to answer the first prong, proposing a much broader definition of an “officer.” The dissent by Justices Sotomayor and Ginsburg felt the finality part of the third prong was not true for the SEC’s ALJs because the SEC can overrule the decision.
What is the impact of the decision?
For Mr. Lucia, it means he is entitled to a new hearing with a different ALJ. The Supreme Court explicitly stated that Mr. Lucia is entitled to a new hearing with a different ALJ who is properly appointed.
I believe all of the SEC’s ALJs are now properly appointed directly by the SEC. In December, the SEC changed its process in anticipation of this decision. The Solicitor General had decided to agree with the argument of Mr. Lucia that the ALJs are “officers.”
The unanswered question is what happens to those cases decided by ALJs. I suppose there could be many others with adverse findings who are going to ask for new hearings with a different ALJ.
Sources:
