Dustin Nofziger, a member of Pryor Cashman's Financial Institutions Group, spoke with the Washington Examiner about SEC v. Jarkesy, an upcoming U.S. Supreme Court case that focuses on the Securities and Exchange Commission's enforcement powers.

In "Supreme Court wades into term's second major fight against the administrative state," Dustin commented on the potential impacts of the case, specifically on whether the enforcement role of SEC-appointed administrative law judges (ALJs) are insufficiently accountable to the President in violation of the Constitution (art. II, § 3):

"Jarkesy has important implications for the prudential banking regulators' administrative enforcement processes," Dustin Nofziger, counsel at Pryor Cashman, told the Washington Examiner.

If the Supreme Court holds that [SEC] ALJs are unconstitutional, "then so is the prudential banking regulators' administrative law judge," Nofziger said, referring to regulators like the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, [Board of Governors of the] Federal Reserve System, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and the National Credit Union Administration, all of which also rely on in-house judges to adjudicate claims.

"And unlike the SEC or the CFPB, the prudential banking regulators do not have the option to bring enforcement actions in federal court, making the administrative hearing process absolutely essential to their enforcement efforts," Nofziger explained.

Read the full article using the link below (subscription may be required).


The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.