Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-86_l5gm.pdf
Page Number: 10

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

5 

Opinion of the Court 

Axon’s purchase of its closest competitor violated the FTC 
Act’s  ban  on  unfair  methods  of  competition.  To  stop  the 
FTC  from  pursuing  that  charge,  Axon  did  just  what 
Cochran had—brought suit against the Commission in dis-
trict court, premised on federal-question jurisdiction.  Like 
Cochran, Axon asserted that the Commission’s ALJs could 
not  constitutionally  exercise  governmental  authority  be-
cause of their dual-layer protection from removal.  In addi-
tion,  Axon  claimed  that  the  combination  of  prosecutorial 
and adjudicative functions in the Commission renders all of 
its enforcement actions unconstitutional.  See Complaint in 
No. 2:20–cv–00014 (D Ariz.), ECF Doc. 1, p. 26 (protesting 
that  “the  FTC  will  act  as  prosecutor,  judge,  and  jury”). 
Again similarly to Cochran, Axon asked the court to enjoin 
the  FTC  “from  subjecting”  it  to  the  Commission’s  “unfair 
and unconstitutional internal forum.”  Id., at 7; see id., at 
28.1 

Cochran’s and Axon’s suits met an identical fate in dis-
trict  court:  dismissal  for  lack  of  jurisdiction.  The  district 
court in Cochran’s case held that the review scheme speci-
fied in the Exchange Act—“administrative review followed 
by judicial review in a federal court of appeals”—“implicitly 
divest[s] district courts of jurisdiction” over “challenges to 
SEC proceedings,” including Cochran’s constitutional ones. 
App. to Pet. for Cert. in No. 21–1239, p. 141a.  Likewise, the 

—————— 

1 In this Court, Axon contends that it separately objected to “the un-
codified,  black-box  ‘clearance’  process”  used  to  determine  whether  the 
FTC or the  Department of Justice  will  investigate a  merger.  Brief for 
Axon 13.  We do not read the complaint that way.  In count I, Axon raised 
the  combination-of-functions  claim;  in  count  II,  it  raised  the  removal 
claim; and in count III, it asserted the view (not at issue here) that it did 
not violate the antitrust laws.  See Complaint in No. 2:20–cv–00014 (D 
Ariz.), pp. 26–28.  The single paragraph criticizing the clearance process 
appears only as background to Axon’s dual constitutional claims.  Accord, 
986 F. 3d 1173, 1181, n. 3 (CA9 2021) (case below) (noting that the three 
claims Axon pushed on appeal “do not line up with” Axon’s complaint). 
We therefore do not address the clearance-process issue.