Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-859new_kjfm.pdf
Page Number: 21

16 

SEC v. JARKESY 

Opinion of the Court 

339–340.1
  In Ex parte Bakelite Corp., we upheld a law authorizing 
the President to impose tariffs on goods imported by “unfair 
methods  of  competition.”    279  U. S.  438,  446  (1929).    The 
law  permitted  him  to  set  whatever  tariff  was  necessary,
subject to a statutory  cap, to  produce fair competition.  If 
the President was “satisfied the unfairness [was] extreme,”
the law even authorized him to “exclude[ ]” foreign goods en-
tirely.  Ibid.  Because the political branches had tradition-
ally held exclusive power over this field and had exercised 

—————— 

1 The  dissent  asserts  that  Oceanic  Steam  Navigation  stands  for  the 
proposition  that  the  public  rights  exception  applies  to  any  exercise  of
power granted to Congress.  Post, at 10–11 (opinion of SOTOMAYOR, J).  It 
must be reading from a different case than we are.  Oceanic Steam Nav-
igation expressly confines its analysis to the exercise of Congress’s power 
over foreign commerce.  214 U. S., at 339 (“It is insisted that the decisions
just stated and the legislative practices referred to are inapposite here, 
because they all relate to subjects peculiarly within the authority of the
legislative department of the Government, and which, from the necessity
of  things,  required  the  concession  that  administrative  officers  should 
have the authority to enforce designated penalties without resort to the 
courts.  But over no conceivable subject is the legislative power of Con-
gress more complete than it is over that with which the act we are now 
considering  deals.);  id.,  at  334  (explaining  that  the  statute  “rest[s]  . . . 
upon  the  authority of  Congress  over  foreign  commerce  and  its  right  to 
control the coming of aliens into the United States” (emphasis added)); 
id., at 340 (citing “the authority of Congress over the right to bring aliens
into the United States”); see id., at 339 (discussing congressional power
over  “the  valuation  of  imported  merchandise,”  “ ‘importers,’ ”  and  “tar-
iff[s]” (quoting Bartlett v. Kane, 16 How. 263, 274 (1854)); 214 U. S., at 
334 (expressly acknowledging and avoiding comment on “ ‘limitations’ ” 
of Congress’s “ ‘interstate commerce’ ” power because this case concerns 
instead Congress’s exercise of its “ ‘plenary power in respect to the exclu-
sion of merchandise brought from foreign countries’ ” (quoting Buttfield 
v. Stranahan, 192 U. S. 470, 492 (1904); emphasis added).  Nowhere does 
Oceanic Steam Navigation say that the public rights exception applies to
cases  concerning  the  securities  markets  or  interstate  commerce  more 
broadly.  The rules the dissent purports to locate in Oceanic Steam Nav-
igation are therefore wholly inapposite.