Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-859new_kjfm.pdf
Page Number: 80

20 

SEC v. JARKESY 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

view  that  ‘a  matter  of  public  rights  must  at  a  minimum
arise “between the government and others” ’ ”).  Conspicu-
ously absent from the majority’s discussion are, for exam-
ple, cases in which this Court held that Congress could as-
sign  a  private  federally  created  action  that  was  “closely
integrated into a public regulatory scheme” for adjudication
in a non-Article III forum.  Thomas v. Union Carbide Agri-
cultural  Products  Co.,  473  U. S.  568,  594  (1985).    These 
cases  include,  for  example,  an  agency’s  adjudication  of 
state-law  counterclaims  to  an  investor’s  federal  action 
against its broker, Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n v. 
Schor, 478 U. S. 833, 835–836, 847–850 (1986), and the ar-
bitration  of  data-compensation  disputes  among  partici-
pants  in  the  Environmental  Protection  Agency’s  pesticide
registration  scheme,  Thomas,  473  U. S.,  at  571,  589–592. 
Both Thomas and Schor thus upheld the non-Article III ad-
judication of disputes between private parties, which natu-
rally did not involve the Government in its sovereign capac-
ity.

Even accepting the majority’s public-rights-are-confusing 
defense, its “strategy for dealing with the confusion is not
to offer a theory for rationalizing this body of law,” but to
provide an incomplete and unprincipled account of the doc-
trine.  Haaland v. Brackeen, 599 U. S. 255, 279 (2023).  The 
majority references, but does not explain, “distinctions our
cases  have  drawn,”  ante,  at  18,  n.  2,  also  cherry-picking
some cases and ignoring others.  Indeed, in lieu of a coher-
ent theory, all the majority has to offer is a list of five “his-
toric categories of adjudications [that] fall within the excep-
tion,” ante, at 14–17, and maybe (just maybe) OSHA, which
the  majority  reluctantly  adds  to  the  mix  at  the  end  of  its
opinion for good measure, see ante, at 22–24.  The majority
ignores countless public-rights cases and entire strands of 
the  doctrine,  and  fails  to  heed  its  own  admonition  that 
“close attention” must be paid “to the basis for each asserted