Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/17-130_4f14.pdf
Page Number: 6

Cite as:  585 U. S. ____ (2018) 

3 

Opinion of the Court 

days  of  testimony  and  argument,  Judge  Elliot  issued  an 
initial decision concluding that Lucia had violated the Act 
and  imposing  sanctions,  including  civil  penalties  of 
$300,000 and a lifetime bar from the investment industry.
In  his  decision,  Judge  Elliot  made  factual  findings  about 
only  one  of  the  four  ways  the  SEC  thought  Lucia’s 
slideshow  misled  investors.    The  Commission  thus  re-
manded for factfinding on the other three claims, explain-
ing that an ALJ’s “personal experience with the witnesses”
places  him  “in  the  best  position  to  make  findings  of  fact”
and “resolve any conflicts in the evidence.”  App. to Pet. for
Cert. 241a.  Judge Elliot then made additional findings of 
deception  and  issued  a  revised  initial  decision,  with  the
same sanctions.  See id., at 118a. 

On  appeal  to  the  SEC,  Lucia  argued  that  the  adminis-
trative  proceeding  was  invalid  because  Judge  Elliot  had 
not  been  constitutionally  appointed.    According  to  Lucia, 
the Commission’s ALJs are “Officers of the United States” 
and thus subject to the Appointments Clause.  Under that 
Clause,  Lucia  noted,  only  the  President,  “Courts  of  Law,” 
or  “Heads  of  Departments”  can  appoint  “Officers.”    See 
Art. II, §2, cl. 2.  And none of those actors had made Judge 
Elliot an ALJ.  To be sure, the Commission itself counts as 
a  “Head[ ]  of  Department[ ].”    Ibid.;  see  Free  Enterprise 
Fund  v.  Public  Company  Accounting  Oversight  Bd.,  561 
U. S.  477,  511–513  (2010).  But  the  Commission  had  left 
the  task  of  appointing  ALJs,  including  Judge  Elliot,  to 
SEC  staff  members.    See  supra,  at  1.  As  a  result,  Lucia 
contended,  Judge  Elliot  lacked  constitutional  authority  to 
do his job.

The Commission rejected Lucia’s argument.  It held that 
the  SEC’s  ALJs  are  not  “Officers  of  the  United  States.” 
Instead,  they  are  “mere  employees”—officials  with  lesser 
responsibilities  who 
the  Appointments
fall  outside 
Clause’s ambit.  App. to Pet. for Cert. 87a.  The Commis-
sion  reasoned  that  its  ALJs  do  not  “exercise  significant