Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-859new_kjfm.pdf
Page Number: 78.0

18 

SEC v. JARKESY 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

majority at times seems to limit the public-rights exception 
to areas of its own choosing.  It points out, for example, that 
some public-rights cases involved the collection of revenue, 
customs law, and immigration law, see ante, at 14–17, and 
that  Atlas  Roofing  involved  OSHA  and  not  “civil  penalty 
suits  for  fraud,”  ante,  at  22.6  Other  times,  the  majority 
highlights  a  particular  practice  predating  the  founding,
such as the “unbroken tradition” in Murray’s Lessee of ex-
ecutive officials issuing warrants of distress to collect reve-
nue.  Ante, at 15; see also ante, at 13–14 (GORSUCH, J., con-
curring).  Needless  to  say,  none  of  these  explanations  for
the doctrine is satisfactory.  What is the legal principle be-
hind  saying  only  these areas  and no  further?    This  Court 
has  rejected  that  kind  of  arbitrary  line-drawing  in  cases
like Stranahan and Atlas Roofing.  How does the require-
ment of a historical practice dating back to the founding, or 
“flow[ing] from centuries-old rules,” ante, at 17, account for 
the  broad  universe  of  public-rights  cases  in  the  United
States Reporter?  The majority does not say. 

The majority’s only other theory fares no better.  The ma-
jority  seems  to  suggest  that  a  common  thread  underlying
these cases is that “the political branches had traditionally 
held exclusive power over th[ese] field[s] and had exercised 
it.”  Ante, at 16–17.  To the extent the majority thinks this
is a distinction, it fails for at least two reasons.
  First, Atlas Roofing expressly rejected the argument that
the public-rights doctrine is limited to particular exercises
of congressional power.  The employers in Atlas Roofing ar-
gued “that cases such as Murray’s Lessee, Elting, [Strana-
han],  Phillips,  and  Helvering  all  deal  with  the  exercise of 
sovereign  powers  that  are  inherently  in  the  exclusive  do-

—————— 

6 The majority also cites cases involving “relations with Indian tribes, 
the  administration  of  public  lands,  and  the  granting  of  public  benefits
such as payments to veterans, pensions, and patent rights.”  Ante, at 17 
(citations omitted).