Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy, et al.

Washington,DC constitutional and administrative law lawyers representd the parties.

In the aftermath of the Wall Street Crash of 1929, Congress passed a

suite of laws designed to combat securities fraud and increase market

transparency. Three such statutes are relevant: The Securities Act of

1933, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. These Acts respectively govern the registration of securities, the trading of securities, and the activities of investment advisers. Although each regulates different aspects of the securities markets, their pertinent provisions—collectively referred to by regulators as "the antifraud provisions,” App. to Pet. for Cert. 73a, 202a—target the same basic behavior: misrepresenting or concealing material facts.



To enforce these Acts, Congress created the Securities and Exchange Commission. The SEC may bring an enforcement action in one of twoforums. It can file suit in federal court, or it can adjudicate the matter

itself. The forum the SEC selects dictates certain aspects of the litigation. In federal court, a jury finds the facts, an Article III judge presides, and the Federal Rules of Evidence and the ordinary rules of discovery govern the litigation. But when the SEC adjudicates the matterin-house, there are no juries. The Commission presides while its Division of Enforcement prosecutes the case. The Commission or its delegee—typically an Administrative Law Judge—also finds facts and decides discovery disputes, and the SEC's Rules of Practice govern.



One remedy for securities violations is civil penalties. Originally,

the SEC could only obtain civil penalties from unregistered investment

advisers in federal court. Then, in 2010, Congress passed the DoddFrank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. The Act authorized the SEC to impose such penalties through its own in-house

proceedings.



Shortly after passage of the Dodd-Frank Act, the SEC initiated an enforcement action for civil penalties against investment adviser George Jarkesy, Jr., and his firm, Patriot28, LLC for alleged violations of the "antifraud provisions” contained in the federal securities laws.



he SEC opted to adjudicate the matter in-house. As relevant, thefinal order determined that Jarkesy and Patriot28 had committed securities violations and levied a civil penalty of $300,000. Jarkesy and patriot28 petitioned for judicial review. The Fifth Circuit vacated the order on the ground that adjudicating the matter in-house violated the defendants' Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial.

When the SEC seeks civil penalties against a defendant for securities fraud, the Seventh Amendment entitles the defendant to a jury

trial. P