Amos Treat & Co., Inc., et al. v. Securities and Exchange Commission et al.
306 F.2d 260 (1962)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An individual who has served in an investigative or prosecutorial capacity for an administrative agency is disqualified under the Administrative Procedure Act and the Due Process Clause from participating in a quasi-judicial capacity in the same or a factually related case after becoming a member of that agency's commission.
Facts:
- In 1959, South Bay Industries, Inc. filed a registration statement for a public stock offering.
- Amos Treat & Co., Inc. (Treat & Co.) acted as the managing underwriter for the South Bay stock, selling shares to the public.
- Around October 1960, the SEC's Division of Corporation Finance, under the direction of Manuel F. Cohen, initiated an investigation into South Bay's registration statement.
- As Director, Cohen was responsible for the initiation, conduct, and supervision of the investigation against Treat & Co.
- On October 11, 1961, Cohen was appointed as a member of the Securities and Exchange Commission.
- The SEC subsequently initiated a formal revocation proceeding against Treat & Co., alleging fraudulent statements in the sale of South Bay stock.
- After becoming a Commissioner, Cohen participated in the Commission's quasi-judicial rulings concerning the ongoing revocation proceeding against Treat & Co.
Procedural Posture:
- The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) initiated an administrative proceeding to determine whether to revoke the broker-dealer registration of Amos Treat & Co., Inc.
- During the proceeding, Treat & Co. learned that Commissioner Cohen, who had previously headed the division that investigated them, was participating in the Commission's adjudicatory rulings.
- Treat & Co. filed a motion with the SEC to disqualify Commissioner Cohen and discontinue the proceeding, which the SEC denied.
- Treat & Co. then filed a complaint in U.S. District Court seeking an injunction to stop the SEC proceeding, alleging a denial of due process.
- The District Court denied the injunction, holding that Treat & Co. had failed to exhaust their administrative remedies.
- Treat & Co. appealed the District Court's denial to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
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 it violate administrative due process for a member of a regulatory commission to participate in an adjudicatory proceeding against a party when that member previously served as the director of the agency division that investigated and brought the charges against that same party?
Opinions:
Majority - Danaher
Yes, it violates administrative due process for a commissioner to participate in an adjudicatory proceeding when he previously led the investigation of the same case. The fundamental requirements of a fair trial in a fair tribunal, which are central to due process, apply to quasi-judicial agency proceedings. The court reasoned that allowing an individual to act as both a prosecutor and a judge in the same case creates an unacceptable probability of unfairness. Citing its own precedent in Trans World Airlines v. Civil Aeronautics Board, the court held that one who participates in a case on behalf of a party cannot later take part in the decision as a tribunal member. The court rejected the SEC's argument that Section 5(c) of the Administrative Procedure Act exempts agency members from its separation-of-functions requirement, concluding that the prohibition against mixing functions followed Cohen from his staff role to his role as Commissioner. The court stressed that administrative hearings must have not only every element of fairness but also the 'very appearance of complete fairness.'
Analysis:
This decision is a cornerstone of administrative law, reinforcing the strict separation of prosecutorial and adjudicative functions within agencies. It clarifies that the prohibition in the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) against combining these roles is a fundamental due process requirement, not a mere procedural guideline. By holding that the prohibition 'follows' an individual from a staff position to a commission seat, the court prevented a loophole that could undermine impartiality. This precedent ensures that parties facing agency adjudication are judged by neutral arbiters, enhancing the legitimacy and perceived fairness of the administrative state.
Unlock the full brief for Amos Treat & Co., Inc., et al. v. Securities and Exchange Commission et al.