American Petroleum Institute v. Securities and Exchange Commission
2013 WL 3307114, 953 F.Supp.2d 5, 43 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 2016 (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An agency rule is invalid if it is based on the erroneous belief that a statute unambiguously compels a particular outcome, thus failing to exercise its discretion. Additionally, an agency's refusal to grant an exemption from a rule is arbitrary and capricious when it fails to conduct a reasoned analysis of the rule's costs and burdens, resting instead on the blanket assertion that any exemption would undermine the statute's general purpose.
Facts:
- Congress enacted Section 13(q) of the Dodd-Frank Act to combat the 'resource curse' by increasing transparency around payments made by resource extraction companies to foreign governments.
- The statute directed the SEC to issue rules requiring these companies ('issuers') to include information on such payments in an 'annual report'.
- The statute also directed the SEC to make a 'compilation' of the submitted information publicly available online 'to the extent practicable'.
- Prior to this law, a voluntary international framework, the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI), existed to promote transparency, sometimes using confidential submissions to a third-party reconciler.
- The American Petroleum Institute and other plaintiffs are trade associations whose member companies are subject to the SEC's new rule.
- During the rulemaking process, commentators informed the SEC that certain countries, including Angola, China, and Qatar, have laws that prohibit the disclosure of payment information.
- These commentators warned that without an exemption for operations in such countries, companies could be forced to either break foreign law or withdraw from those countries, losing tens of billions of dollars.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs, the American Petroleum Institute et al., filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia challenging a final SEC rule.
- Plaintiffs simultaneously filed a petition for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which was believed to have original jurisdiction.
- The District Court stayed its proceedings while the D.C. Circuit considered the jurisdictional issue.
- The D.C. Circuit held that original jurisdiction properly lay with the district court and dismissed the petition for review.
- Following the D.C. Circuit's decision, the District Court lifted the stay, and the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a rule issued by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) violate the Administrative Procedure Act where the SEC erroneously concluded that the Dodd-Frank Act unambiguously mandated public disclosure of company reports and where it arbitrarily and capriciously denied any exemption for companies operating in countries that prohibit such disclosure?
Opinions:
Majority - John D. Bates
Yes, the SEC's rule violates the Administrative Procedure Act. The rule is invalid because the SEC made two substantial errors: it misread the statute to mandate public disclosure of the reports, and its decision to deny any exemption was arbitrary and capricious. First, the SEC incorrectly concluded at Chevron step one that Section 13(q) unambiguously required public filing of the annual reports. The plain text of the statute requires issuers to submit an 'annual report' but does not use the word 'public.' A separate subsection specifically addresses 'Public availability of information,' directing the SEC only to create a 'compilation' 'to the extent practicable.' This structure indicates that Congress did not intend for the 'annual report' provision itself to mandate public disclosure. Because the SEC believed it was compelled by the statute, it failed to exercise its own discretion, and its interpretation is not entitled to deference. Second, the SEC's denial of an exemption for countries prohibiting disclosure was arbitrary and capricious. The SEC acknowledged that the rule would impose billions of dollars in costs and burden competition, yet its primary reason for denial—that an exemption would be 'inconsistent' with the statute's transparency goals—is insufficient. The purpose of an exemption is to relieve a party from a general rule. The SEC failed to properly weigh the massive costs against the statutory objective and did not adequately consider more tailored alternatives, thus abdicating its responsibility to engage in reasoned decisionmaking.
Analysis:
This decision serves as a significant check on agency power, reinforcing that an agency cannot avoid accountability for its policy choices by claiming its hands were tied by an unambiguous statute when the text is, in fact, ambiguous. It highlights the judiciary's role in enforcing the distinction between Chevron step one (where a court determines if a statute is clear) and step two (where a court defers to a reasonable agency interpretation of an ambiguity). The ruling also underscores that an agency's duty to engage in reasoned decisionmaking requires a genuine balancing of a statute's goals against its costs, especially when those costs are substantial; simply citing a statute's overarching purpose is not enough to justify ignoring severe economic consequences or failing to consider less burdensome alternatives like targeted exemptions.
