Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-86_l5gm.pdf
Page Number: 32

Cite as:  598 U. S. ____ (2023) 

9 

THOMAS, J., concurring 

put a thumb (or perhaps two forearms) on the agency’s side 
of the scale.”  Id., at 1247–1248.  Such a regime “allows a 
mere  party  to  supplant  a  jury  as  the  court’s  fact  finder,”
Hamburger  319,  and  it  “effectively  vest[s]  the  judicial
power either in the agency or in Congress,” Lawson 1247.
It thus appears likely that, “when agency adjudicators stray 
outside the proper limits of executive adjudication such as 
by  depriving  individuals  of  vested  property  rights,  they 
must not serve even as fact-finders subject to judicial defer-
ence.”  Mascott 25 (footnote omitted).

In sum, whether any form of administrative adjudication
is constitutionally permissible likely turns on the nature of
the right in question.  If private rights are at stake, the Con-
stitution  likely  requires  plenary  Article  III  adjudication. 
Conversely, if privileges or public rights are at stake, Con-
gress likely can foreclose judicial review at will. 

III 
The rights at issue in these cases appear to be core pri-
vate rights that must be adjudicated by Article III courts. 
For  one,  Axon  and  Cochran  face  the  threat  of  significant 
monetary fines.  Indeed, in the first round of proceedings,
the SEC imposed a $22,500 civil penalty on Cochran.  And, 
the FTC seeks to require Axon to transfer intellectual prop-
erty to another entity.  These types of penalties and orders 
implicate  the  core  private  right  to  property.   See  Lawson 
1247 (“imposition of a civil penalty or fine” implicates core 
Article  III  power);  see  also  Nelson  626–627.    Accordingly, 
they likely must be adjudicated by Article III courts and ju-
ries.  See Tull, 481 U. S., at 422 (“A civil penalty was a type 
of  remedy  at  common  law  that  could  only  be  enforced  in
courts of law”); accord,  id., at 427–428 (Scalia, J., concur-
ring in part and dissenting in part).  Naturally, merely la-
beling  the deprivation  of  a  core  private  right  a  “civil  pen-
alty”  cannot  allow  Congress  and  agencies  to  circumvent 
constitutional  requirements.  Cf.  Granfinanciera,  S. A.  v.