Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-859new_kjfm.pdf
Page Number: 43

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

11 

GORSUCH, J., concurring 

as “a restraint on the legislative” branch, preventing Con-
gress from “mak[ing] any process ‘due process of law,’ by its
mere will.”  Id., at 276. 

C 
These three constitutional provisions were meant to work
together, and together they make quick work of this case. 
In fact, each provision requires the result the Court reaches
today. 

First, because the “ ‘matter’ ” before us is one “which, from 
its nature, is the subject of a suit at the common law,” id., 
at 284, “the responsibility for deciding [it] rests with Article 
III judges in Article III courts.”  Stern v. Marshall, 564 U. S. 
462, 484 (2011).  Nor does it make a difference whether we 
think  of  the  SEC’s  action  here  as  a  civil-penalties  suit  or 
something akin to a traditional fraud claim:  At the found-
ing, both kinds of actions were tried in common-law courts. 
See ante, at 9–13 (discussing civil penalties); see also, e.g., 
Pasley  v.  Freeman,  3  T. R.  51,  100  Eng.  Rep.  450  (K. B.
1789)  (action  for  fraud);  Baily  v.  Merrell,  3  Bulst.  94,  81 
Eng. Rep. 81 (K. B. 1615) (same).  And that tells us all we 
need to know that the SEC’s in-house civil-penalty scheme 
violates Article III by “withdraw[ing]” the matter “from ju-
dicial  cognizance”  and  handing  it  over  to  the  Executive
Branch for an in-house trial.  Murray’s Lessee, 18 How., at 
284; see supra, at 7–8. 

Second, because the action the SEC seeks to pursue is not 
the stuff of equity or admiralty jurisdiction but the sort of 
suit historically adjudicated before common-law courts, the
Seventh Amendment guarantees Mr. Jarkesy the right to
have his case decided by a jury of his peers.  In this regard, 
it is irrelevant that the SEC derived its power to sue under 
a “new statut[e]” or that the agency proceeded under “a new 
cause of action.”  Brief for Petitioner 13, 22 (internal quota-
tion marks omitted).  As we have seen, the government can-
not evade the Seventh Amendment so easily.  See ante, at