Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-859new_kjfm.pdf
Page Number: 93.0

Cite as:  603 U. S. ____ (2024) 

33 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

trine.  Less uncertain, however, are the momentous conse-
quences  that  flow  from  the  majority’s  insistence  that  the 
Government’s rights to civil penalties must now be tried be-
fore a jury in federal court.  The majority’s decision, which 
strikes down the SEC’s in-house adjudication of civil-pen-
alty claims on the ground that such claims are legal in na-
ture and entitle respondents to a federal jury, effects a seis-
mic shift in this Court’s jurisprudence.  Indeed, “[i]f you’ve
never heard of a statute being struck down on that ground,”
and  you  recall  having  read  countless  cases  approving  of 
that  arrangement,  “you’re  not  alone.”  Seila  Law  LLC  v. 
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 591 U. S. 197, 294 
(2020) (KAGAN, J., concurring in judgment with respect to
severability and dissenting in part). 

The majority pulls a rug out from under Congress with-
out even acknowledging that its decision upends over two 
centuries  of  settled  Government  practice.  The  United 
States, led by then-Solicitor General Robert Bork and then-
Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division Rex Lee,
told this Court in Atlas Roofing that “during the whole of
our  history,  regulatory  fines  and  penalties  have  been  col-
lected by non-jury procedures pursuant to . . . legislative de-
cisions,” and that “[i]t would be most remarkable if, at this 
late date, the Seventh Amendment were construed to out-
law this consistent rule of government followed for two cen-
turies.”  Brief for Respondents in Atlas Roofing, O. T. 1976, 
No. 75–746, etc., pp. 81–82.  This Court agreed and upheld 
that practice, it seemed, once and for all. 
—————— 
some  commentators,  or  on  whether  or  not  a  particular  case  is  “cele-
brated.”  Ante, at 25, n. 4.  Atlas Roofing and the long line of cases before
it are precedents from this Court entitled to stare decisis effect.  Indeed, 
this  Court  has  reaffirmed  and  repeatedly  cited  Atlas  Roofing  with  ap-
proval.  See, e.g., Oil States, 584 U. S., at 344–345; Stern, 564 U. S., at 
489–490;  Granfinanciera,  492  U. S.,  at  48,  51–54,  60–61; id.,  at  65–66 
(Scalia,  J.,  concurring  in  part  and  concurring  in  judgment);  Tull,  481 
U. S., at 418, n. 4; Northern Pipeline Constr. Co., 458 U. S., at 67, n. 18, 
69, n. 23, 70, 73, 77 (plurality opinion).