Opinion ID: 184730
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Whether the Fine Violates the Eighth Amendment

Text: 50 Stoiber also argues that the fine violates the Eighth Amendment's Excessive Fines Clause 12 because it is not proportional to his misconduct. We consider this argument waived because Stoiber failed to raise it before the SEC as required by statute: 51 No objection to an order or rule of the Commission, for which review is sought under this section, may be considered by the court unless it was urged before the Commission or there was reasonable ground for failure to do so. 52 15 U.S.C. § 78y(c)(1). This requirement is not inapplicable solely because the objection not urged before the SEC is a constitutional one. See C.E. Carlson, Inc. v. SEC, 859 F.2d 1429, 1439 (10th Cir.1988). 53 The failure to raise an issue in a prior forum is excusable when due to an intervening change in the law, see Association of Bituminous Contractors, Inc. v. Apfel, 156 F.3d 1246, 1254 n. 5 (D.C.Cir.1998); Roosevelt v. E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co., 958 F.2d 416, 419 & n. 5 (D.C.Cir.1992), but no such exception is applicable here. Stoiber contends that United States v. Bajakajian, 524 U.S. 321, 118 S.Ct. 2028, 141 L.Ed.2d 314 (1998), decided after the SEC affirmed the NASD in his case, is a landmark decision that breathed new life into Eighth Amendment jurisprudence. Although Bajakajian did reject a fine because of a lack of proportionality with the offense, it certainly was not the source of any new or novel proportionality requirement. See Pharaon v. Board of Governors of Fed. Reserve Sys., 135 F.3d 148, 156 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 119 S.Ct. 371, 142 L.Ed.2d 307 (1998) (stating, months before Bajakajian was decided, that the Clause requires us to consider the value of the fine in relation to the offense). Bajakajian did not elevate Stoiber's Excessive Fines claim from completely untenable to plausible. United States v. Byers, 740 F.2d 1104, 1116 n. 11 (D.C.Cir.1984) (en banc). Stoiber's objection to the fine on other grounds before the agency was not sufficient to avert waiver on this one.