Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-859new_kjfm.pdf
Page Number: 95

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

35 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

§41107(a)  (Federal  Maritime  Commission);  47  U. S. C. 
§503(b)(3)  (Federal  Communications  Commission);  49 
U. S. C.  §521  (Federal  Railroad  Administration);  §46301 
(Department of Transportation). 

Some  agencies,  like  the  Consumer  Financial  Protection
Bureau,  the  Environmental  Protection  Agency,  and  the 
SEC, can pursue civil penalties in both administrative pro-
ceedings and federal court.  See, e.g., 12 U. S. C. §§5563(a),
5564(a),  5565(a)(1),  (2)(H),  and  (c)  (Consumer  Financial
Protection Bureau); 33 U. S. C. §§1319(a), (b), and (g) (En-
vironmental Protection Agency); supra, at 2 (SEC).  Others 
do  not  have  that  choice.  As  the  above-cited  statutes  con-
firm, the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commis-
sion, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the Fed-
eral  Mine  Safety  and  Health  Review  Commission,  the
Department  of  Agriculture,  and  many  others,  can  pursue
civil penalties only in agency enforcement proceedings.  For 
those and countless other agencies, all the majority can say 
is tough luck; get a new statute from Congress.

Against this backdrop, our coequal branches will be sur-
prised to learn that the rule they thought long settled, and 
which  remained  unchallenged  for  half  a  century,  is  one
that, according to the majority and the concurrence, my dis-
sent just announced today.  Unfortunately, that mistaken
view means that the constitutionality of hundreds of stat-
utes may now be in peril, and dozens of agencies could be 
stripped of their power to enforce laws enacted by Congress. 
Rather than acknowledge the earthshattering nature of its 
holding, the majority has tried to disguise it.  The majority 
claims  that  its  ruling  is  limited  to  “civil  penalty  suits  for
fraud” pursuant to a statute that is “barely over a decade
old,” ante, at 18, n. 2, 22, an assurance that is in significant 
tension with other parts of its reasoning.  That incredible 
assertion should fool no one.  Today’s decision is a massive 
sea  change.  Litigants  seeking  further  dismantling  of  the
“administrative  state”  have  reason  to  rejoice  in  their  win