Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/17-130_4f14.pdf
Page Number: 1

(Slip Opinion) 

OCTOBER  TERM,  2017 

1 

Syllabus 

NOTE:  Where  it  is  feasible,  a  syllabus  (headnote)  will  be  released,  as  is
being  done  in  connection  with  this  case,  at  the  time  the  opinion  is  issued.
The  syllabus  constitutes  no  part  of  the  opinion  of  the  Court  but  has  been
prepared  by  the  Reporter  of  Decisions  for  the  convenience  of  the  reader. 
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Syllabus 

LUCIA ET AL. v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR 
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT 

No. 17–130.  Argued April 23, 2018—Decided June 21, 2018 

The  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  (SEC  or  Commission)  has
statutory authority to enforce the nation’s securities laws.  One way
it can do so is by instituting an administrative proceeding against an
alleged  wrongdoer.  Typically,  the  Commission  delegates  the  task  of
presiding  over  such  a  proceeding  to  an  administrative  law  judge 
(ALJ).  The  SEC  currently  has  five  ALJs.    Other  staff  members,  ra-
ther  than  the  Commission  proper,  selected  them  all.    An  ALJ  as-
signed to hear an SEC enforcement action has the “authority to do all 
things necessary and appropriate”  to ensure a “fair  and orderly” ad-
versarial proceeding.  17 CFR §§201.111, 200.14(a).  After a hearing 
ends, the ALJ issues an initial decision.  The Commission can review 
that decision, but if it opts against review, it issues an order that the 
initial  decision  has  become  final.    See  §201.360(d).  The  initial  deci-
sion  is  then  “deemed  the  action  of  the  Commission.”    15  U. S. C. 
§78d–1(c).

The SEC charged petitioner Raymond Lucia with violating certain
securities  laws  and  assigned  ALJ  Cameron  Elliot  to  adjudicate  the 
case.  Following a hearing, Judge Elliot issued an initial decision con-
cluding that Lucia had violated the law and imposing sanctions.  On 
appeal  to the SEC, Lucia argued that the administrative proceeding
was  invalid  because  Judge  Elliot  had  not  been  constitutionally  ap-
pointed.    According  to  Lucia,  SEC  ALJs  are  “Officers  of  the  United 
States”  and  thus  subject  to  the  Appointments  Clause.   Under  that 
Clause,  only  the  President,  “Courts  of  Law,”  or  “Heads  of  Depart-
ments”  can  appoint  such  “Officers.”    But  none  of  those  actors  had 
made Judge Elliot an ALJ.  The SEC and the Court of Appeals for the
D. C.  Circuit  rejected  Lucia’s  argument,  holding  that  SEC  ALJs  are