Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/17-130_4f14.pdf
Page Number: 13

10 

LUCIA v. SEC 

Opinion of the Court 

an ALJ decision at all.  And when the SEC declines review 
(and  issues  an  order  saying  so),  the  ALJ’s  decision  itself
“becomes final” and is “deemed the action of the Commis-
sion.”  §201.360(d)(2);  15  U. S. C.  §78d–1(c);  see  supra,  at 
2.  That last-word capacity makes this an a fortiori case: If 
the Tax Court’s STJs are officers, as Freytag held, then the 
Commission’s ALJs must be too.
  The  amicus  offers  up  two  distinctions  to  support  the
opposite  conclusion.  His  main  argument  relates  to  “the 
power  to  enforce  compliance  with  discovery  orders”—the 
fourth of Freytag’s listed functions.  501 U. S., at 882.  The 
Tax Court’s STJs, he states, had that power “because they 
had  authority  to  punish  contempt”  (including  discovery
violations) through fines or imprisonment.  Brief for Ami-
cus  Curiae  37;  see  id.,  at  37,  n. 10  (citing  26  U. S. C. 
§7456(c)).  By  contrast,  he  observes,  the  Commission’s 
ALJs  have  less  capacious  power  to  sanction  misconduct.
The  amicus’s  secondary  distinction  involves  how  the  Tax
Court  and  Commission,  respectively,  review  the  factfind-
ing of STJs and ALJs.  The Tax Court’s rules state that an 
STJ’s  findings  of  fact  “shall  be  presumed”  correct.    Tax 
Court  Rule  183(d).    In  comparison,  the  amicus  notes,  the 
SEC’s  regulations  include  no  such  deferential  standard.
See Brief for Amicus Curiae 10, 38, n. 11. 

But  those  distinctions  make  no  difference  for  officer 
status.  To start with the amicus’s primary point, Freytag
referenced  only  the  general  “power  to  enforce  compliance
with discovery orders,” not any particular method of doing 
so.  501  U. S.,  at  882.    True  enough,  the  power  to  toss
malefactors  in  jail  is  an  especially  muscular  means  of
enforcement—the nuclear option of compliance tools.  But 
just as armies can often enforce their will through conven-
tional  weapons,  so  too  can  administrative  judges.  As 
noted  earlier,  the  Commission’s  ALJs  can  respond  to
discovery  violations  and  other  contemptuous  conduct  by 
excluding  the  wrongdoer  (whether  party  or  lawyer)  from