Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-859new_kjfm.pdf
Page Number: 19.0

14 

SEC v. JARKESY 

Opinion of the Court 

the  United  States’ ”  cannot  be  shared  with  the  other 
branches.  Id., at 483 (quoting United States v. Nixon, 418 
U. S. 683, 704 (1974); alteration in original).  Or, as Alex-
ander Hamilton wrote in The Federalist Papers, “ ‘there is
no liberty if the power of judging be not separated from the 
legislative and executive powers.’ ”  The Federalist No. 78, 
at  466  (quoting  1  Montesquieu,  The  Spirit  of  Laws  181 
(10th ed. 1773)).

On that basis, we have repeatedly explained that matters
concerning private rights may not be removed from Article 
III courts.  Murray’s Lessee, 18 How., at 284; Granfinanci-
era, 492 U. S., at 51–52; Stern, 564 U. S., at 484.  A hall-
mark that we have looked to in determining if a suit con-
cerns  private  rights  is  whether  it  “is  made  of  ‘the  stuff  of
the traditional actions at common law tried by the courts at
Westminster in 1789.’ ”  Id., at 484 (quoting Northern Pipe-
line Constr. Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co., 458 U. S. 50, 90 
(1982) (Rehnquist, J., concurring in judgment)).  If a suit is 
in the nature of an action at common law, then the matter 
presumptively concerns private rights, and adjudication by 
an Article III court is mandatory.  Stern, 564 U. S., at 484. 
At  the  same  time,  our  precedent  has  also  recognized  a 
class  of  cases  concerning  what  we  have  called  “public 
rights.”  Such matters “historically could have been deter-
mined  exclusively  by  [the  executive  and  legislative] 
branches,” id., at 493 (internal quotation marks omitted), 
even when they were “presented in such form that the judi-
cial power [wa]s capable of acting on them,” Murray’s Les-
see, 18 How., at 284.  In contrast to common law claims, no 
involvement by an Article III court in the initial adjudica-
tion is necessary in such a case.

The decision that first recognized the public rights excep-
tion was Murray’s Lessee.  In that case, a federal customs 
collector  failed  to  deliver  public  funds  to  the  Treasury,  so
the  Government  issued  a  “warrant  of  distress”  to  compel 
him  to  produce  the  withheld  sum.    18  How.,  at  274–275.