Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-859new_kjfm.pdf
Page Number: 62

2 

SEC v. JARKESY 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

Government in its sovereign capacity, also known as a pub-
lic  right.  According  to  the  majority,  the  Constitution  re-
quires  the  Government  to  seek  civil  penalties  for  federal-
securities fraud before a jury in federal court.  The nature 
of  the  remedy  is,  in  the  majority’s  view,  virtually  disposi-
tive.  That is plainly wrong.  This Court has held, without 
exception, that Congress has broad latitude to create statu-
tory obligations that entitle the Government to civil penal-
ties, and then to assign their enforcement outside the regu-
lar courts of law where there are no juries.

Beyond the majority’s legal errors, its ruling reveals a far
more  fundamental  problem:  This  Court’s  repeated  failure
to appreciate that its decisions can threaten the separation
of powers.  Here, that threat comes from the Court’s mis-
taken  conclusion  that  Congress  cannot  assign  a  certain
public-rights  matter  for  initial  adjudication  to  the  Execu-
tive because it must come only to the Judiciary.

The  majority  today  upends  longstanding  precedent  and 
the established practice of its coequal partners in our tri-
partite system of Government.  Because the Court fails to 
act as a neutral umpire when it rewrites established rules
in the manner it does today, I respectfully dissent. 

I 

The story of this case is straightforward.  The Securities 
and  Exchange  Commission  (SEC  or  Commission)  investi-
gated  respondents  George  Jarkesy  and  his  advisory  firm 
Patriot28,  LLC,  for  alleged  violations  of  federal-securities
laws in connection with the launch of two hedge funds.

In deciding how and where to enforce these laws, the SEC 
could have filed suit in federal court or adjudicated the mat-
ter in an administrative enforcement action subject to judi-
cial review.  See 15 U. S. C. §§77h–1, 77t, 78u, 78u–2, 78u–
3, 80b–3, 80b–9.  The SEC opted for the latter.  In 2013, the 
SEC 
initiated  an  administrative  enforcement  action 
against  respondents,  alleging  violations  of  the  Securities