Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-86_l5gm.pdf
Page Number: 40

Cite as:  598 U. S. ____ (2023) 

7 

GORSUCH, J., concurring in judgment 

hoping  to  contest  “a  final  order  of  the  Commission.”  But 
just as plainly, Ms. Cochran does not seek to challenge an 
SEC final order.  Nor could she, because the agency has not 
entered one in her case.  Ms. Cochran does not even seek 
relief in anticipation of a final agency order.  Instead, she 
seeks to avoid being hauled  before  an agency that she  al-
leges is unconstitutionally structured.  See ante, at 4.  That 
is exactly the kind of “here-and-now injury” this Court has 
held  “can  be  remedied  by  a  court”  without  regard  to  the 
eventual outcome of agency proceedings.  Seila Law LLC v. 
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 591 U. S. ___, ___ 
(2020) (internal quotation marks omitted) (slip op., at 10). 
If all that were not enough, there is more.  A neighboring 
statutory provision says that “the rights and remedies” the 
Exchange Act authorizes “shall be in addition to any and all 
other rights and remedies that may exist at law or in eq-
uity.”  §78bb(a)(2).  This Court has explained that a “saving 
clause”  of  this  sort  “strongly  buttresse[s]”  the  conclusion 
that a review provision such as §78y(a)(1) does not preclude 
“traditional avenues of judicial relief.”  Abbott Laboratories 
v. Gardner, 387 U. S. 136, 142, 144 (1967).  And, of course, 
one traditional avenue of relief is a suit in district court un-
der §1331 seeking to enjoin unconstitutional conduct.  See 
Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Over-
sight Bd., 561 U. S. 477, 491, n. 2 (2010).  Far from barring 
Ms.  Cochran’s  path  to  court,  then,  the  Exchange  Act  ex-
pressly preserves it. 

The story repeats itself when it comes to Axon.  The gov-
ernment insists that §5(c) of the FTC Act precludes district 
courts  from  entertaining  constitutional  challenges  to  the 
agency’s structure.  But §5(c) provides only that parties sub-
ject to “an order of the Commission to cease and desist from 
using any method of competition or act or practice may ob-
tain  a  review  of  such  order  in  the  court  of  appeals  of  the 
United  States.”    15  U. S. C.  §45(c).  And,  here  again,  we 
have nothing like that.  The FTC has not ordered Axon to