The U.S. Supreme Court has issued a significant ruling in SEC v. Jarkesy, limiting the Securities and Exchange Commission's use of in-house judges for civil penalties in securities fraud cases. In a 6-3 decision, the court held that defendants are entitled to a jury trial under the Seventh Amendment when the SEC seeks civil penalties. Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion, with Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson dissenting. This decision strips the SEC of a critical enforcement tool and marks a major shift in how the agency can enforce securities laws, with far-reaching implications for other regulatory agencies.
The Supreme Court strips the Securities and Exchange Commission of a critical enforcement tool in fraud cases https://t.co/VDvcjWB3Ps
Supreme Court strips SEC’s use of in-house judges in major blow to Wall Street regulator https://t.co/988nYy97we https://t.co/HHi0UY5cI5
Breaking: The Supreme Court has ruled that the Securities and Exchange Commission (#SEC) cannot use in-house trials for civil fraud complaints, granting defendants the right to a jury trial in federal court. This verdict, reached with a 6-3 majority, significantly affects how…
US Supreme Court faults SEC's use of in-house judges in latest curbs on agency powers https://t.co/jTUuA17DYw
"The justices ruled in a 6-3 vote that people accused of fraud by the SEC, which regulates securities markets, have the right to a jury trial in federal court...Jarkesy’s lawyers noted that the SEC wins almost all the cases it brings in front of the administrative law judges but…
In SEC v. Jarkesy, #SCOTUS today held that when the SEC seeks civil penalties against a defendant for securities fraud, the Seventh Amendment entitles the defendant to a jury trial. Learn more about the case here: https://t.co/JxqSDwSopX https://t.co/HgoGU5vV5c
Supreme Court curbs SEC powers to enforce securities laws - CNBC
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the @SECGov can no longer use in-house judges to try civil securities fraud cases, stripping the agency of one of its key enforcement tools. @cheyenneligon reports https://t.co/jkZxYqsTST
Significant victory for jury rights today in the SCt’s decision in Jarkesy, concluding that defendants in securities fraud cases involving civil penalties have the right to a jury trial and the SEC can’t use its own in-house tribunals to impose the penalties /…
Quick #SCOTUS Jarkesy reaction: 6-3 decision holding Seventh Amendment provides a jury right for imposition of civil penalties under securities laws; SEC cannot compel individuals to have civil penalties imposed in SEC's in-house adjudication system. https://t.co/kKmVo79Hst https://t.co/ITsedoqQaV
🚨 Today the Supreme Court put new limits on the power of the SEC to enforce securities laws. The court ruled 6-3 that adjudication of cases by in-house judges violates the right to trial by jury. The challenge zeroed in on how the SEC enforces securities laws, including those…
Supreme Court Limits SEC's Edge with In-House Judges in Securities Cases The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 against the SEC's practice of using in-house judges to adjudicate cases, stating it violates defendants' rights to a jury trial. The case originated from hedge fund manager… https://t.co/igYQyoCrvy
SEC defendants are entitled to jury trials, SCOTUS rules. https://t.co/MoYHkAClX2 #SCOTUS
The Supreme Court strips @SECGov of a critical enforcement tool in fraud cases Reporting by @AP https://t.co/dPishIkA4j #FlaPol
The Supreme Court strips the SEC of a critical enforcement tool in fraud cases https://t.co/uOBQntJzuW
The high court has curbed the Securities and Exchange Commission's use of in-house judges. It said people accused of fraud have a constitutional right to make their case to a federal jury. The ruling could affect other regulatory agencies. https://t.co/WMi33pgySs
The Supreme Court stripped the SEC of a major tool in fighting securities fraud in a decision that also could have far-reaching effects on other regulatory agencies. https://t.co/Q3yDSivctf
The Supreme Court has ruled against the SEC in a dispute over the agency's ability to use in-house tribunals to seek civil penalties against defendants for securities fraud, stripping the agency of a key enforcement tool. https://t.co/80hptxPUYg
JUST IN: 🇺🇸 US Supreme Court limits SEC's use of in-house judges for fraud cases. https://t.co/XBBEVqT5MW
🚨NEWS ALERT: In a landmark 6-3 decision, the US Supreme Court has ruled that individuals accused of fraud by the @SECGov have the right to a jury trial in federal court, rather than facing the agency's internal administrative proceedings. https://t.co/g4Di31PeYy
BREAKING: The U.S. Supreme Court curtailed the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission's use of its in-house court system, saying that the accused have a right to a jury trial when financial penalties are on the table. https://t.co/hDfeQKu6ph https://t.co/kohClROPPL
The Supreme Court limited the Securities and Exchange Commission’s use of in-house legal proceedings to discipline those it believes have committed fraud — a blow to the agency in one of several cases this term challenging the power of the executive branch.…
Major victory against administrative overreach in SEC v. Jarkesy today 💥 SCOTUS holds that the SEC violated the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial by using in-house hearings to seek civil penalties. The first of many blows SCOTUS will deliver to the SEC in coming years 📈
#SCOTUS holds that when the SEC pursues civil penalties against a defendant for securities fraud, the 7th Amendment entitles the defendant to a jury trial. Agencies cannot take on the "roles of prosecutor, judge, and jury." https://t.co/eXENB2wRdV https://t.co/Ux8RzKpmOL https://t.co/7O7bwDFxgq
🚨BREAKING: The Supreme Court has just ruled in a 6-3 vote that when the @SECGov seeks penalties for fraud, a defendant is entitled to a jury trial in federal court, as opposed to being subjected to the agency’s “in-house” legal proceedings.
The Supreme Court just ruled that the SEC can’t rely on in-house courts to resolve certain enforcement disputes, which could deliver a blow to a critical power of corporate watchdogs across the federal government. More: https://t.co/uRTN5w6pOk https://t.co/pbKWMpOCJ9
🚨 BREAKING: 🇺🇸 US Supreme Court Curbs SEC's Use of In-House Judges for Fraud Cases 🚨
BREAKING: U.S. SUPREME COURT STRIPS THE SEC OF A CRITICAL ENFORCEMENT TOOL IN FRAUD CASES - PER @AP https://t.co/Ic1kF9JYGh
U.S. Supreme Court faults SEC's use of in-house judges in latest curbs on agency powers https://t.co/eudcYTziQX https://t.co/AsDYgdOssN
The Supreme Court strips the SEC of a critical enforcement tool in fraud cases (from @AP) https://t.co/FkQLAowi9W
Yikes SEC v. Jarkesy is out & Court says 6-3 on party lines there needs to be a whole jury trial to impose civil penalties for securities fraud I covered oral argument for @ballsstrikes last year and explained why that's not great https://t.co/xetCQwc7l4 https://t.co/YIqg9SLYNv https://t.co/1342e1cob7
JUST IN: The Supreme Court claws back SEC’s enforcement powers https://t.co/KD7O2bXoB8
[𝕏] The US Supreme Court has ruled to limit the Securities and Exchange Commission's ability to use its in-house judges to prosecute fraud cases
MORE #BREAKING FROM #SCOTUS WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Thursday stripped the Securities and Exchange Commission of a major tool in fighting securities fraud in a decision that also could have far-reaching effects on other regulatory agencies. @FOX8NOLA
JUST IN: 🇺🇸 US Supreme Court restricts SEC's use of in-house judges for fraud cases.
In a 6-3 decision, the conservative Supreme Court just stripped the Securities and Exchange Commission of a critical enforcement tool in fighting fraud cases. This decision — part of business-backed efforts to curb the power of federal agencies — will likely have far-reaching…
BREAKING: The Supreme Court strips the Securities and Exchange Commission of a critical enforcement tool in fraud cases. https://t.co/H70bJvAi1I
BREAKING - THIRD RULING: Supreme Court Blocks SEC's Use of In-House Judges for Civil Penalties, Upholds Right to Jury Trial The Supreme Court has just now ruled that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) cannot compel defendants to defend themselves before the agency's… https://t.co/RQhqnmehPd
SEC v. Jarkesy is out. Jury trial is required in civil enforcement actions that ask for a fine. MAJOR victory for the Seventh Amendment! https://t.co/uvdNDc1txQ
SEC v Jarkesy — challenge to the SEC requiring use of agency admin law judges in civil penalty cases. Court holds that defendants have 7th amend right to a jury trial in these cases and SEC can’t force them into administrative court. Another big loss for the SEC
NEW: US Supreme Court curbs SEC's use of in-house judges in fraud cases. Full opinion here: https://t.co/jspTNqgHxO https://t.co/dXBAyLcv7R
Supreme Court Curbs SEC’s Use of in-House Judges in Fraud Cases
Supreme Court Curbs SEC's Use Of In-House Judges In Fraud Cases, Backs Right To Jury Trial For Some SEC Defendants
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court strips the Securities and Exchange Commission of a critical enforcement tool in fraud cases.
The Supreme Court's third (but not last) decision is SEC v. Jarkesy. By a 6–3 vote, the court holds that when the SEC seeks civil penalties, the defendant is entitled to a jury trial in federal court. This sounds technical but it's huge. https://t.co/72kkCBN0Wn
BREAKING: A 6-3 Supreme Court rules the Securities & Exchange Commission CANNOT use in-house courts to pursue sanctions for fraud & securities law violations. Sotomayor, Kagan & Jackson dissent. (SEC v. Jarkesy, No. 22-859) #SCOTUS https://t.co/EzTRFSewNP https://t.co/QulCVi89GZ
Third (but *not* last) ruling is SEC v. Jarkesy. For a 6-3 ideological majority, Chief Justice Roberts holds that, when the SEC seeks civil penalties against a defendant for securities fraud, the Seventh Amendment entitles the defendant to a jury trial. https://t.co/w9vwb0B0J5
SUPREME COURT: SEC v. Jarkesy. CJ Roberts. 6-3. Liberals dissent. When the SEC seeks civil penalties against a defendant for securities fraud, the Seventh Amendment entitles the defendant to a jury trial. https://t.co/Kib3dWRGf4
FINAL SCOTUS decision: Snyder v. U.S. Kavanaugh, 6-3. Jackson dissents. Federal law. proscribes bribes to state and local officials but does not make it a crime for those officials to accept gratuities for their past acts. https://t.co/7ktUbQSusC
BREAKING: A 6-3 Supreme Court rules a federal bribery law doesn’t cover gratuities, or gifts given to public officials for acts they’ve already taken. Sotomayor, Kagan & Jackson dissent. (Snyder v. U.S., No. 23-108) #SCOTUS