The US Supreme Court on Thursday issued favorable rulings to federal regulators in two separate cases, adding clarity to recent holdings that signaled skepticism toward agency powers.
In FCC v. AT&T, the Supreme Court ruled 8-1 that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) system for issuing monetary forfeiture orders does not violate the guarantee of a jury trial established in the Seventh Amendment. The case, consolidated with Verizon v. FCC, heard challenges from AT&T and Verizon regarding over $100 million in fines stemming from their mishandling of customer location data. The companies argue that the FCC’s enforcement process denied their Constitutional right to a trial. Thursday’s ruling clarified that the FCC forfeiture orders are not actually binding on their own; instead, prior to monetary collections, the Department of Justice must file a separate lawsuit under 47 U.S. Code § 504, ultimately providing the right to a trial.
In a separate ruling on Thursday, the Supreme Court unanimously decided Sripetch v. SEC, holding that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) does not need to prove that investors suffered actual financial losses before seeking disgorgement. The case involved Ongkaruck Sripetch, a penny-stock trader who ran pump-and-dump schemes across 20 or more companies. Sripetch contested the SEC’s demand for $4.1 million on the argument that his victims were not able to demonstrate quantified financial harm. The Court on Thursday found that forfeiture of illegally obtained profit is an equitable remedy which is measured by the defendant’s gain rather than the victim’s loss, and that traditional common law equitable principles permit courts for such sanctions even when the other party has not suffered measurable financial damage. This decision thereby affirms one of the SEC’s most effective tools for enforcement.
Both rulings on Thursday drew from the 2024 Supreme Court decision in SEC v. Jarkesy, which held that the SEC violated the Seventh Amendment by imposing civil penalties through its internal administrative process that did not involve a jury. That decision prompted challenges to similar enforcement structures at other agencies, with contesting parties arguing that the holding in Jarkesy should be applied broadly. In both of Thursday’s decisions, the Court declined to extend Jarkesy, instead finding that the specific enforcement structures at issue contained sufficient safeguards to pass Constitutional standards.
Thursday’s decisions also come amidst the landscape of the 2024 landmark case Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, where the Court overruled the longstanding Chevron doctrine and eliminated the presumption that deference should be given to agencies’ interpretations of ambiguous statutes. Viewed as a collective reframing of agency authority, Loper Bright, Jarkesy, and Thursday’s rulings demonstrate an ongoing calibration of the relationship between the Supreme Court and federal agencies which has drawn significant attention in recent years.
Kenya dispatch: High Court suspends US-backed Ebola quarantine facility
Perú dispatch: second round of presidential election voting set for June 7
Beyond Sovereignty: The Legal and Moral Case for Treating Hormuz as a Global Trust
‘This is Canada’s moment’ — Former Canadian justice minister, UN prosecutor call on Ottawa to lead on Ukraine war crimes accountability
The Legal Architecture of Reparations: A Conversation with Kwesi Pratt Jnr.
Beaten, Starved, Unbroken: An Interview with Ben Marmarelli, Lawyer to Marwan Barghouti, Palestine’s Nelson Mandela
Gandhi commits his first act of civil disobedience
On June 7, 1893, Mohandas Gandhi committed his first act of civil disobedience in South Africa. Because he was an Indian, Gandhi was ordered to move to the third class section of a train, despite holding a first-class ticket. When he refused, Gandhi was thrown off of the train. Gandhi would go on to organize efforts by Indians living in South Africa to oppose racial discrimination thereby founding the Natal Indian Congress. He would then return to his native India to lead its drive for independence from Great Britain. Learn more about the Natal Indian Congress from the South African History Archive.
US Supreme Court ruled contraceptive use protected by privacy right
On June 7, 1965, in Griswold v. Connecticut, the US Supreme Court held that the use of contraceptives was protected by the constitutional right of privacy.
Learn more about the impact of this case from the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.
Leave a Reply