Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-859new_kjfm.pdf
Page Number: 29

24 

SEC v. JARKESY 

Opinion of the Court 

claims that traced their ancestry to the common law.  Ra-
ther,  Congress  stated  that  it  intended  the  agency  to  “de-
velop[ ] innovative methods, techniques, and approaches for 
dealing with occupational safety and health problems.”  29 
U. S. C. §651(b)(5) (1976 ed.).  In both concept and execu-
tion, the Act was self-consciously novel. 

Facing enforcement actions, two employers alleged that 
the adjudicatory authority of the OSHRC violated the Sev-
enth Amendment.  See Atlas Roofing, 430 U. S., at 448–449. 
The  Court  rejected  the  challenge,  concluding  that  “when
Congress  creates  new  statutory  ‘public  rights,’  it  may  as-
sign  their  adjudication  to  an  administrative  agency  with
which a jury trial would be incompatible, without violating 
the Seventh Amendment[ ].”  Id., at 455.  As the Court ex-
plained, the case involved “a new cause of action, and rem-
edies therefor, unknown to the common law.”  Id., at 461. 
The Seventh Amendment, the Court concluded, was accord-
ingly “no bar to . . . enforcement outside the regular courts 
of law.”  Ibid. 

The cases that Atlas Roofing relied upon did not extend
the  public  rights  exception  to  “traditional  legal  claims.” 
Granfinanciera, 492 U. S., at 52.  Instead, they applied the
exception to actions that were “ ‘not . . . suit[s] at common
law or in the nature of such . . . suit[s].’ ”  Atlas Roofing, 430 
U. S.,  at  453  (quoting  Jones  &  Laughlin  Steel  Corp.,  301 
U. S., at 48); see Atlas Roofing, 430 U. S., at 450–451 (dis-
cussing,  e.g.,  Murray’s  Lessee,  Ex parte  Bakelite  Corp., 
Helvering  v.  Mitchell,  303  U. S.  391  (1938),  and  Oceanic 
Steam Navigation Co.).  Indeed, the Court recognized that
if a case did involve a common law action or its equivalent, 
a jury was required.  See 430 U. S., at 455 (“ ‘[W]here the 
action involves rights and remedies recognized at common 
law, it must preserve to parties their right to a jury trial.’ ” 
(quoting  Pernell  v.  Southall  Realty,  416  U. S.  363,  383 
(1974)); Atlas Roofing, 430 U. S., at 458–459 (jury required