Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-86_l5gm.pdf
Page Number: 25.0

2 

AXON ENTERPRISE, INC. v. FTC 

THOMAS, J., concurring 

scheme of review,” as it did in the provisions of the Securi-
ties Exchange Act and the Federal Trade Commission Act 
at issue here.  Ante, at 7; see 15 U. S. C. §§45(c) and 78y(a).
Under such schemes, administrative agencies may impose
orders and penalties on private parties; adjudicate them be-
fore  agency  administrative  law  judges  (ALJs);  and  only
then  be  subjected  to  deferential  review  by  an  Article  III 
court.  As the Court puts it, “[t]he agency effectively fills in 
for  the  district  court,  with  the  court  of  appeals  providing
judicial  review.”    Ante,  at  7.  That  Article  III  review  is 
sharply limited.  For example, under the administrative re-
view schemes at issue here, the reviewing court must treat
agency findings of fact as “conclusive” so long as they are 
“supported by substantial evidence,” §78y(a)(4); see §45(c) 
(“if supported by evidence”), a highly deferential standard 
of  review.1    The  reviewing  court  also  cannot  take  its  own
evidence—it can only remand the case to the agency for fur-
ther proceedings.  See §§45(c) and 78y(a)(5).

This  mixed  system—primary  adjudication  by  an  execu-
tive agency subject to only limited Article III review—is un-
like  the  system  that  prevailed  for  the  first  century  of  our 
Nation’s existence.  During that period, judicial review was 
“all-or-nothing”; “either a court had authority to review ad-
ministrative action or not, and if it did, it decided the whole 
case.”  T. Merrill, Article III, Agency Adjudication, and the 
Origins  of  the  Appellate  Review  Model  of  Administrative
Law,  111  Colum.  L. Rev.  939,  944,  952  (2011)  (Merrill). 
This all-or-nothing model rested on a conceptual distinction 
—————— 

1 Deferential  review  of  the  SEC’s  and  FTC’s  decisions  is  particularly 
concerning given their tendency to overwhelmingly agree with their re-
spective agency’s decisions.  See 986 F. 3d 1173, 1187 (CA9 2021) (“FTC 
has  not  lost  a  single  case  [in  administrative  proceedings]  in  the  past 
quarter-century.  Even the 1972 Miami Dolphins would envy that type
of  record”);  Brief  for  Respondent  in  No.  21–1239,  p. 9  (noting  that,  be-
tween October 2010 and March 2015, SEC won more than 90% of cases 
brought before its ALJs as compared to 69% of cases brought before fed-
eral courts).