Lucia v. Securities and Exchange Commission
138 S.Ct. 2044 (2018)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) of the Securities and Exchange Commission are 'Officers of the United States' because they hold a continuing position established by law and exercise significant authority by presiding over adversarial hearings. Therefore, their appointment is subject to the requirements of the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
Facts:
- Raymond Lucia marketed a retirement savings strategy known as 'Buckets of Money.'
- The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) alleged that Lucia used misleading slideshow presentations to deceive prospective clients.
- The SEC instituted an administrative proceeding against Lucia and his investment company.
- The SEC assigned Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Cameron Elliot to adjudicate the enforcement action.
- ALJ Elliot had been selected for his position by SEC staff members, rather than by the Commission itself.
- After a nine-day hearing, ALJ Elliot issued an initial decision concluding that Lucia had violated securities laws.
- ALJ Elliot imposed sanctions on Lucia, including $300,000 in civil penalties and a lifetime bar from the investment industry.
Procedural Posture:
- The SEC initiated an administrative proceeding against Raymond Lucia, where an ALJ found him liable and imposed sanctions.
- Lucia appealed to the full SEC, arguing for the first time that the ALJ's appointment was unconstitutional.
- The SEC, as the agency's highest adjudicative body, rejected Lucia’s argument, affirming the sanctions and holding that its ALJs are employees, not officers.
- Lucia, as petitioner, sought review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
- A three-judge panel of the intermediate appellate court affirmed the SEC's decision.
- The D.C. Circuit granted rehearing en banc but the full court divided evenly, resulting in a per curiam order denying Lucia's claim.
- Lucia successfully petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Are Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) of the Securities and Exchange Commission 'Officers of the United States' within the meaning of the Appointments Clause?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Kagan
Yes. The Commission’s ALJs are 'Officers of the United States' subject to the Appointments Clause. The Court’s analysis in Freytag v. Commissioner, which dealt with special trial judges of the Tax Court, is controlling. Like the special trial judges in Freytag, SEC ALJs hold a 'continuing' office established by law and exercise 'significant authority' through important functions. These functions include taking testimony, conducting trials, ruling on the admissibility of evidence, and enforcing compliance with discovery orders. The fact that an ALJ’s decision is not always the final word of the agency does not diminish their status as officers; in fact, an ALJ's decision can become the final action of the Commission if review is declined, making this an even stronger case for officer status than in Freytag.
Concurring - Justice Thomas
Agrees with the majority's conclusion based on Freytag but advocates for a broader, originalist interpretation of 'Officers of the United States.' This interpretation would encompass all federal civil officials who perform an ongoing, statutory duty, regardless of whether their authority is deemed 'significant.' Under this view, SEC ALJs easily qualify as officers because they are continuously responsible for performing statutory duties, making the 'significant authority' test unnecessary.
Concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part - Justice Breyer
Agrees that the ALJ was improperly appointed but would resolve the case on statutory grounds to avoid reaching the constitutional question. The Administrative Procedure Act requires the 'agency'—meaning the Commission itself, not its staff—to appoint ALJs. Deciding the case on this basis would avoid the complex constitutional issue of whether the statutory 'for cause' removal protections for ALJs are permissible for constitutional officers under Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Bd. Breyer dissents from the majority's remedy, arguing that the same, now properly appointed, ALJ should be allowed to rehear the case on remand.
Dissenting - Justice Sotomayor
No. The Commission's ALJs are not 'Officers of the United States' because they lack final decision-making authority. A requisite component of 'significant authority' should be the ability to issue final, binding decisions on behalf of the government. SEC ALJs only issue 'initial' decisions that are subject to de novo review by the Commission, which retains complete authority to alter the findings and outcome. Freytag is distinguishable because the special trial judges in that case did have the authority to issue final decisions in certain matters, which was the essential basis for the Court's holding.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies that SEC ALJs, and likely ALJs at many other federal agencies, are constitutional officers, not mere employees. It reinforces the accountability principles of the Appointments Clause by requiring that such powerful adjudicators be appointed by politically accountable actors like the President, a court, or a department head. However, by holding that ALJs are officers, the Court has teed up a major future constitutional conflict over whether their statutory 'for cause' removal protections are compatible with the President's executive power, as interpreted in cases like Free Enterprise Fund. This unresolved issue threatens to destabilize the long-standing structure of the administrative state and the independence of its adjudicators.
