Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-859new_kjfm.pdf
Page Number: 64.0

4 

SEC v. JARKESY 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

Court of Appeals held that the SEC violated respondents’ 
Seventh Amendment rights and thus vacated the SEC’s or-
der.  Id., at 465–466.1 

The majority affirms the Fifth Circuit’s decision, notwith-
standing the mountain of precedent against it.  A faithful 
application of our precedent would have led, inexorably, to 
upholding the statutory scheme that Congress enacted for 
the  SEC’s  in-house  adjudication  of  federal-securities 
claims. 

II 
The  majority  did  not  need  to  break  any  new  ground  to
resolve respondents’ Seventh Amendment challenge.  This 
Court’s  longstanding  precedent  and  established  govern-
ment practice uniformly support the constitutionality of ad-
ministrative schemes like the SEC’s: agency adjudications 
of statutory claims for civil penalties brought by the Gov-
ernment in its sovereign capacity.  See Part II–B (infra, at 
7–14).  In assessing the constitutionality of such adjudica-
tions, the political branches’ “ ‘[l]ong settled and established 
practice,’ ” which this Court has upheld and reaffirmed time
and again, is entitled to “ ‘great weight.’ ”  Chiafalo v. Wash-
ington, 591 U. S. 578, 592–593 (2020) (quoting The Pocket 
Veto Case, 279 U. S. 655, 689 (1929)); accord, Vidal v. El-
ster, 602 U. S. 286, 323 (2024) (BARRETT, J., concurring in
part); id., at 330 (SOTOMAYOR, J., concurring in judgment); 
Consumer  Financial  Protection  Bureau  v.  Community  Fi-
nancial Services Assn. of America, Ltd., 601 U. S. 416, 442 

—————— 

1 As the majority notes, respondents also prevailed on two other con-
stitutional challenges in the Court of Appeals.  See ante, at 6.  The di-
vided  panel  concluded  that:  (1)  the  SEC’s  discretion  to  bring  the  case 
within the agency instead of federal court violated the nondelegation doc-
trine; and (2) a for-cause restriction on the Administrative Law Judge’s 
removal violated Article II and the separation of powers.  34 F. 4th 446, 
459–465  (CA5  2022).    I  disagree  with  the ruling  below  on  both  points. 
Because the majority does not reach these issues, though, I address only 
the Seventh Amendment challenge discussed in the majority’s opinion.