Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-859new_kjfm.pdf
Page Number: 18.0

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

13 

Opinion of the Court 

federal securities fraud is broader.  For example, federal se-
curities  fraud  employs  the  burden  of  proof  typical  in  civil
cases, while its common law analogue traditionally used a 
more stringent standard.  See Herman & MacLean v. Hud-
dleston,  459  U. S.  375,  387–390  (1983).    Courts  have  also 
not typically interpreted federal securities fraud to require 
a showing of harm to be actionable by the SEC.  See, e.g., 
Blavin, 760 F. 2d, at 711; SEC v.  Life Partners  Holdings, 
Inc., 854 F. 3d 765, 779 (CA5 2017).  Nevertheless, the close 
relationship between federal securities fraud and common 
law  fraud  confirms  that  this  action  is  “legal  in  nature.” 
Granfinanciera, 492 U. S., at 53. 

B 
1 

Although the claims at issue here implicate the Seventh 
Amendment, the Government and the dissent argue that a
jury trial is not required because the “public rights” excep-
tion  applies.  Under  this  exception,  Congress  may  assign 
the  matter  for  decision  to  an  agency  without  a  jury,  con-
sistent with the Seventh Amendment.  But this case does 
not fall within the exception, so Congress may not avoid a 
jury trial by preventing the case from being heard before an
Article III tribunal. 

The Constitution prohibits Congress from “withdraw[ing]
from judicial cognizance any matter which, from its nature, 
is the subject of a suit at the common law.”  Murray’s Lessee 
v.  Hoboken  Land  &  Improvement  Co.,  18  How.  272,  284 
(1856).  Once such a suit “is brought within the bounds of 
federal  jurisdiction,”  an  Article  III  court  must  decide  it, 
with  a  jury  if  the  Seventh  Amendment  applies.  Stern  v. 
Marshall, 564 U. S. 462, 484 (2011).  These propositions are
critical  to  maintaining  the  proper  role  of  the  Judiciary  in
the Constitution: “Under ‘the basic concept of separation of 
powers . . . that flow[s] from the scheme of a tripartite gov-
ernment’ adopted in the Constitution, ‘the judicial Power of