Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-859new_kjfm.pdf
Page Number: 72

12 

SEC v. JARKESY 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

facilities of the post office, pensions, and payments to vet-
erans,”  Crowell,  285  U. S.,  at  51,  and  n. 13  (collecting
cases);  see  also,  e.g.,  Helvering  v.  Mitchell,  303  U. S.  391, 
401–404 (1938) (administrative penalty for underpayment 
of taxes); NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 301 U. S. 
1,  22–24,  48–49  (1937)  (reinstatement  of  dismissed  em-
ployee  and  backpay  in  adjudication  of  unfair-labor-prac-
tices claim under the National Labor Relations Act); Phil-
lips  v.  Commissioner,  283  U. S.  589,  591–592  (1931) 
(deficiency  assessments  for  unpaid  taxes);  Lloyd  Sabaudo 
Societa Anonima per Azioni v. Elting, 287 U. S. 329, 334– 
335  (1932)  (fines  for  violation  of  immigration  law  barring
entry  of  certain  classes  of  individuals);  Ex  parte  Bakelite 
Corp., 279 U. S., at 446–447, 451, 458 (adjudication of un-
fair-methods-of-competition and unfair-acts claims, and im-
position of additional duties under customs law); Passavant 
v. United States, 148 U. S. 214, 215–216, 220 (1893) (pen-
alty for undervaluation of imported merchandise).

The list could go on and on.  That is because, in every case
where the Government has acted in its sovereign capacity
to enforce a new statutory obligation through the adminis-
trative  imposition  of  civil  penalties  or  fines,  this  Court, 
without exception, has sustained the statutory scheme au-
thorizing that enforcement outside of Article III. 

2 
A unanimous Court made this exact point nearly half a 
century ago in Atlas Roofing.  That was the last time this 
Court  considered  a  public-rights  case  where  the  constitu-
tionality  of  an  in-house  adjudication  of  statutory  claims
brought  by  the  Government  was  at  issue.    That  case  pre-
sented the same question as this one: Whether the Seventh 
Amendment permits Congress to commit the adjudication
of a new cause of action for civil penalties to an administra-
tive agency.  430 U. S., at 444.  The Court said it did.