Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-859new_kjfm.pdf
Page Number: 44

12 

SEC v. JARKESY 

GORSUCH, J., concurring 

9; supra, at 8–10. 

Third, were there any doubt, the Due Process Clause con-
firms these conclusions.  Cf. Murray’s Lessee, 18 How., at 
275  (explaining  that  the  Article  III  challenge  before  the 
Court  could  “best  be  considered”  as  raising  a  due  process 
question).  Because  the  penalty  the  SEC  seeks  would 
“depriv[e]” Mr. Jarkesy of “property,” Amdt. 5, due process
demands nothing less than “the process and proceedings of
the common law,” 3 Story §1783, at 661.  That means the 
regular course of trial proceedings with their usual protec-
tions, see Murray’s Lessee, 18 How., at 280, not the use of 
ad hoc adjudication procedures before the same agency re-
sponsible for prosecuting the law, subject only to hands-off 
judicial review, see supra, at 10–11. 

III 
A 
The government resists these conclusions.  As the govern-
ment sees it, this case implicates the so-called public rights
exception.  One that defeats not only Mr. Jarkesy’s right to
trial by jury, but also his right to proceed before an inde-
pendent trial judge consistent with traditional judicial pro-
cesses.  That is, on the government’s account, not only does 
the Seventh Amendment fall away; so does the usual oper-
ation of Article III and the Due Process Clause. 

In the government’s view, the public rights exception “at 
a minimum allows Congress to create new statutory obliga-
tions,  impose  civil  penalties  for  their  violation,  and  then
commit to an administrative agency the function of deciding
whether  a  violation  has  in  fact  occurred.”    Brief  for  Peti-
tioner 21 (emphasis added; internal quotation marks omit-
ted).  Put plainly, all that need be done to dispense almost 
entirely with three separate constitutional provisions is an
Act  of  Congress  creating  some  new  statutory  obligation.
And, the government continues, this case easily meets that
standard because the proceeding against Mr. Jarkesy is one