Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-86_l5gm.pdf
Page Number: 9.0

4 

AXON ENTERPRISE, INC. v. FTC 

Opinion of the Court 

courts’  ordinary  federal-question  authority—their  power, 
under 28 U. S. C. §1331, to resolve “civil actions arising un-
der the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 
We describe the two cases in turn, but what we have just 
said  they  have  in  common  is  really  all  it  is  necessary  to 
know. 

The  first  case  arises  from  an  SEC  enforcement  action 
brought  against  Michelle  Cochran,  a  certified  public  ac-
countant.  In an earlier round of that proceeding, an ALJ 
found  that  Cochran  had  failed  to  comply  with  auditing 
standards, in violation of the Exchange Act.  But soon after 
that decision issued, this Court held that the SEC’s ALJs 
had  been  improperly  appointed.  See  Lucia  v.  SEC,  585 
U. S. ___, ___ (2018).  In compliance with that ruling, the 
SEC  ordered  a  fresh  hearing,  conducted  by  a now  validly 
appointed ALJ.  That was the last straw for Cochran.  Be-
fore the new ALJ hearing began, she sued the Commission 
in federal district court, asserting jurisdiction under §1331. 
Cochran’s  complaint  focused  on  the  two  layers  of  tenure 
protection all ALJs hold: By statute, those officials may be 
removed only “for good cause as determined by the [MSPB], 
whose  members  themselves  can  only  be  removed  by  the 
President for good cause.”  App. 60; see supra, at 2.  That 
arrangement, Cochran asserted, so greatly insulates ALJs 
from presidential supervision as to violate the separation of 
powers—more specifically, Article II’s vesting of executive 
power in the President.  See App. 53–54, 60–62.  And be-
cause  that  was  true  (Cochran  continued),  ALJs  could  not 
constitutionally  exercise  power:  They  could  neither  hold 
any hearings nor make any decisions.  Cochran thus sought 
declaratory and injunctive relief freeing her of the obliga-
tion “to submit to an unconstitutional proceeding.”  Id., at 
60; see id., at 64. 

The second case arises from an FTC enforcement action 
against Axon Enterprise, a company that makes and sells 
policing equipment.  In its complaint, the FTC alleged that