Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-86_l5gm.pdf
Page Number: 1

(Slip Opinion) 

OCTOBER  TERM,  2022 

1 

Syllabus 

NOTE:  Where  it  is  feasible,  a  syllabus  (headnote)  will  be  released,  as  is 
being  done  in  connection  with  this  case,  at  the  time  the  opinion  is  issued. 
The  syllabus  constitutes  no  part  of  the  opinion  of  the  Court  but  has  been 
prepared  by  the  Reporter  of  Decisions  for  the  convenience  of  the  reader. 
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Syllabus 

AXON ENTERPRISE, INC. v. FEDERAL TRADE 
COMMISSION ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR 
THE NINTH CIRCUIT 

No. 21–86.  Argued November 7, 2022—Decided April 14, 2023* 

Michelle  Cochran  and  Axon  Enterprise,  Inc.—respondents  in  separate 
enforcement actions initiated in the Securities and Exchange Commis-
sion (SEC) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC)—each filed suit 
in federal district court challenging the constitutionality of the agency 
proceedings  against  them.
  When,  as  in  the  enforcement  actions 
against Cochran and Axon, a Commission elects to institute adminis-
trative  proceedings  to  address  statutory  violations,  it  typically  dele-
gates the initial adjudication to an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) 
with  authority  to  resolve  motions,  hold  a  hearing,  and  then  issue  a 
decision.  As prescribed by statute, a party objecting to the Commission 
proceedings makes its claims first within the Commission itself, and 
then  (if  needed)  in  a  federal  court  of  appeals.  But  the  parties  here 
sidestepped  that  review  scheme  and  brought  their  claims  in  district 
court, seeking to enjoin the administrative proceedings.  Cochran and 
Axon asserted that the tenure protections of the agencies’ ALJs render 
them  insufficiently  accountable  to  the  President,  in  violation  of 
separation-of-powers  principles.  Axon  also  attacked  as  unconstitu-
tional the combination of prosecutorial and adjudicatory functions in 
the FTC.  Each suit premised jurisdiction on district courts’ ordinary 
federal-question  authority  to  resolve  “civil  actions  arising  under  the 
Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”  28 U. S. C. §1331. 
Cochran’s and Axon’s suits initially met the same fate: dismissal for 
lack of jurisdiction.  The district court in Cochran’s case held that the 

—————— 

* Together with No. 21–1239, Securities and Exchange Commission et 
al. v. Cochran, on certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the 
Fifth Circuit.