Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-859new_kjfm.pdf
Page Number: 5.0

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

5 

Syllabus 

common law fraud, employ the same terms of art, and operate pursu-
ant to similar legal principles.  In short, this action involves a “mat-
ter[ ] of private rather than public right.”  Granfinanciera, 492 U. S., 
at 56.  Pp. 20–21.

(4) The  SEC  claims  that  the  public  rights  exception  applies  be-
cause Congress created “new statutory obligations, impose[d] civil pen-
alties  for  their  violation,  and  then  commit[ted]  to  an  administrative
agency  the  function  of  deciding  whether  a  violation  ha[d]  in  fact  oc-
curred.”  Brief for Petitioner 21.  Granfinanciera does away with much 
of the SEC’s argument.  Congress cannot “conjure away the Seventh
Amendment by mandating that traditional legal claims be . . . taken 
to an administrative tribunal.”  492 U. S., at 52.  The SEC’s argument 
that  Granfinanciera  does  not  apply  because  the  Government  is  the 
party bringing this action also fails.  What matters is the substance of 
the suit, not  where it is brought, who brings it, or how it is  labeled. 
Northern Pipeline Constr. Co., 458 U. S., at 69 n. 23 (plurality opinion). 
Pp. 21–22. 

(5) The Court’s opinion in Atlas Roofing Co. v. Occupational Safety 
and Health Review Comm’n, 430 U. S. 442, is not to the contrary.  The 
litigation in that case arose under the Occupational Health and Safety
Act.  Facing agency enforcement actions, two employers alleged that 
the agency’s adjudicatory authority violated the Seventh Amendment.
See id., at 448–449.  The Court concluded that Congress could assign
the OSH Act adjudications to an agency because the claims involved
“a new cause of action, and remedies therefor, unknown to the common 
law.”  Id.,  at  461.  The  cases  Atlas  Roofing  relied  upon  applied  the 
“public rights” exception to actions that were “ ‘not . . . suit[s] at com-
mon law or in the nature of such . . . suit[s].’ ”  Id., at 453.  Atlas Roofing
therefore  does  not  apply  here,  where  the  statutory  claim  is  “ ‘in  the
nature of ’ ” a common law suit.  Id., at 453.  Later rulings also foreclose 
reading Atlas Roofing as the SEC does.  This Court clarified in Tull 
that the Seventh Amendment does apply to novel statutory regimes, 
so long as the statutory claims are akin to common law claims.  See 
481 U. S., at 421–423.  And the Court has explained that the public
rights exception does not apply automatically whenever Congress as-
signs a matter to an agency for adjudication.  See Granfinanciera, 492 
U. S., at 52.  Pp. 22–27. 

The Court does not reach the remaining issues in this case.  

34 F. 4th 446, affirmed and remanded. 

ROBERTS, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which THOMAS, 
ALITO,  GORSUCH,  KAVANAUGH,  and  BARRETT,  JJ.,  joined.    GORSUCH,  J., 
filed a concurring opinion, in which THOMAS, J., joined.  SOTOMAYOR, J., 
filed a dissenting opinion, in which KAGAN and JACKSON, JJ., joined.