Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-859new_kjfm.pdf
Page Number: 68.0

8 

SEC v. JARKESY 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

settled  and  undisputed  that,  at  a  minimum,  a  matter  of 
public rights arises “between the government and persons
subject to its authority in connection with the performance 
of the constitutional functions of the executive or legislative 
departments.”  Crowell,  285  U. S.,  at  50;  Oil  States,  584 
U. S., at 335 (describing the “Court’s longstanding formula-
tion of the public-rights doctrine”); accord, Granfinanciera, 
492 U. S., at 51, and n. 8; Atlas Roofing, 430 U. S., at 452, 
457;  Ex parte  Bakelite  Corp.,  279  U. S.,  at  451.    Indeed, 
“from  the  time  the  doctrine  of  public  rights  was  born,  in 
1856,”  everyone  understood  that  public  rights  “ ‘arise  “be-
tween the government and others,” ’ ” and refer to “rights of 
the public—that is, rights pertaining to claims brought by
or against the United States.”  Granfinanciera, 492 U. S., 
at  68–69  (Scalia,  J.,  concurring  in  part  and  concurring  in
judgment);  see  ibid.  (collecting  sources).  So,  while  this 
Court has recognized public rights in certain disputes be-
tween  private  parties,  see  infra,  at  19–20,  the  doctrine’s 
heartland consists of claims belonging to the Government.
When  a  claim  belongs  to  the  Government  as  sovereign,
the Constitution permits Congress to enact new statutory
obligations, prescribe consequences for the breach of those
obligations, and then empower federal agencies to adjudi-
cate  such  violations  and  impose  the  appropriate  penalty. 
See Atlas Roofing, 430 U. S., at 450–455 (collecting cases).4 

—————— 
nanciera, S. A. v. Nordberg, 492 U. S. 33, 55, n. 10 (1989) (involving dis-
pute between private parties in bankruptcy court); see ante, at 17 (citing 
Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC, 584 U. S. 
325,  332–334  (2018)  (involving  patent  dispute  between  private  parties
before the U. S. Patent and Trademark Office); Thomas v. Union Carbide 
Agricultural Products Co., 473 U. S. 568, 575 (1985) (involving challenge 
to arbitration procedure for private parties disputing data compensation
under  federal  pesticide  registration  program));  see  also  Stern  v.  Mar-
shall, 564 U. S. 462, 469–470 (2011) (involving dispute between private
parties in bankruptcy court); Northern Pipeline Constr. Co. v. Marathon 
Pipe Line Co., 458 U. S. 50, 56–57 (1982) (plurality opinion) (same). 

4 Judicial review of these agency decisions allows Congress to avoid