Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-859new_kjfm.pdf
Page Number: 35

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

3 

GORSUCH, J., concurring 

Judge, 62 A. B. A. J. 1424, 1426 (1976).  And with a jury out
of the picture, the ALJ decides not just the law but the facts 
as well.1 

Going  in,  then,  the  odds  were  stacked  against  Mr.
Jarkesy.  The numbers confirm as much:  According to one
report, during the period under study the SEC won about
90% of its contested in-house proceedings compared to 69% 
of its cases in court.  D. Thornley & J. Blount, SEC In-House 
Tribunals:  A  Call  for  Reform,  62  Vill.  L. Rev.  261,  286 
(2017) (Thornley).  Reportedly, too, one of the SEC’s handful
of ALJs even warned individuals during settlement discus-
sions that he had found defendants liable in every contested
case  and  never  once  “ ‘ruled  against  the  agency’s  enforce-
ment  division.’ ”    Axon  Enterprise,  Inc.  v.  FTC,  598  U. S. 
175,  213–214  (2023)  (GORSUCH,  J.,  concurring  in  judg-
ment).

The shift from a court to an ALJ didn’t just deprive Mr.
Jarkesy of the right to an independent judge and a jury.  He 
also lost many of the procedural protections our courts sup-
ply in cases where a person’s life, liberty, or property is at 
stake.  After an agency files a civil complaint in court, a de-
fendant may obtain from the SEC a large swathe of docu-
ments  relevant  to  the  lawsuit.  See  Fed.  Rule  Civ.  Proc. 
26(b)(1).  He may subpoena third parties for testimony and 
documents  and  take  10  oral  depositions—more  with  the 
court’s permission.  Rule 45; Rule 30(a)(2)(A)(i).  A court has 
flexibility, as well, to set deadlines for discovery and other
matters to meet the needs of the case.  See Rule 16.  And 

—————— 

1 In many agencies, litigants are not even entitled to have ALJs, with 
their modicum of protections, decide their cases.  These agencies use “ad-
ministrative  judges.”    Some  agencies  can  replace  these  administrative
judges if they don’t like their decisions.  And some of these judges may
move in and out of prosecutorial and adjudicatory roles, or move in and 
out of the very industries their agencies regulate.  See United States v. 
Arthrex, Inc., 594 U. S. 1, 36–37 (2021) (GORSUCH, J., concurring in part 
and dissenting in part).