5th Circuit Hints SEC ALJs Unconstitutional

Burr & Forman
Contact

Burr & Forman

In an Opinion highlighting the Circuit split over the constitutionality of SEC administrative law judges (“ALJs”), the Fifth Circuit recently stayed an FDIC civil-penalty and bar order against a Bank director, pending complete judicial review.

Petitioner Burgess is a bank director (and former officer) prosecuted administratively by the FDIC for improper expense practices and misuse of bank property.  An FDIC ALJ conducted the hearing and recommended civil penalties and a banking bar.  The FDIC largely adopted those findings and conclusions.  Burgess moved to stay implementation of the order pending judicial review by the 5th Circuit.

The Court held that Burgess demonstrated a “strong showing” of likelihood of success.  The Court noted the tension between the Supreme Court’s Freytag opinion holding that IRS ALJs are subject to the constitution’s Appointments Clause and the D.C. Circuit’s contrary holding regarding FDIC ALJs.  Compare Freytag v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 501 U.S. 868, 881-82 (1991) with Landry v. FDIC, 204 F. 3d 1125 (D.C. Cir. 2000).

The Court noted, though, that the Circuits were split on the same issue regarding SEC ALJs and that even the D.C. Circuit recently denied en banc review of the point by an evenly divided court.

Compare Raymond J. Lucia Cos., Inc. v. SEC, 832 F. 3d 277 (D.C. Cir. 2016)(SEC ALJs not “inferior officers”), reh’g denied, 2017 WL 2727019 (D.C. Cir. June 26, 2017)(equally divided court), with Bandimere v. SEC, 844 F. 3d 1168 (10th Cir. 2016)(SEC ALJs are inferior officers).  Lucia’s certiorari petition is pending before the Supreme Court.  Raymond J. Lucia v. SEC, No. 17-130 (S. Ct., filed July 21, 2017).

The opinion tips that the Fifth Circuit is likely to align with Bandimere and reject the SEC’s customary reliance on Landry.  It indicates this panel (at least) is likely to hold that both FDIC and SEC ALJs are “inferior officers” and the current administrative law regimes are unconstitutional under the Appointments Clause.

The opinion, Burgess v. FDIC, No. 17-60579 (Sept. 7, 2017) is here.

[View source.]

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Burr & Forman | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Burr & Forman
Contact
more
less

PUBLISH YOUR CONTENT ON JD SUPRA NOW

  • Increased visibility
  • Actionable analytics
  • Ongoing guidance

Burr & Forman on:

Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
- hide
- hide