Latest News

The US Supreme Court supports federal regulators FCC and SEC in their victories

In a pair?of rulings reaffirming the power of federal agencies, the U.S. Supreme Court has reaffirmed limitations it had previously imposed on government regulatory agencies but rejected attempts by?challengers? to push these constraints into new territories.

The court, with a conservative majority of 6-3, handed down decisions in two cases on Thursday that were in favor of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and Securities and Exchange Commission. The court ruled against the challenges made to the FCC system of levying fines, and to?the?SEC?s broad powers to recover illegal profits through a financial remedy known as disgorgement.

The court has challenged the "administrative state", the government bureaucracy which regulates so many aspects of American life and business, in several recent major cases. However, the justices of Thursday backed the two agencies.

Georgetown University Law Professor David Super described these rulings as a "small, mostly technical win" for the FCC.

Super stated that "these cases should be understood to mean the court is telling Congress and the administrative agencies, if the adhere to the strict limits on public regulations in its previous decisions, it will not return and move the goalposts." In both cases, the administration of President Donald Trump defended agencies.

AT&T AND VERIZON LOSE In the FCC's case, the court ruled in favor of the agency 8-1, rejecting a challenge from wireless?carriers AT&T or Verizon. This was the latest case to examine whether an internal enforcement system at a federal agency violates the right to a trial by jury. The Supreme Court curbed in-house proceedings in the SEC case in 2024.

The Justices rejected on Thursday the argument of AT&T, Verizon and that the Jarkesy decision should dictate an outcome similar to the FCC case.

The court stressed that the financial penalties imposed by the agency - also known as forfeiture orders - do not prevent parties from challenging the fines imposed by the agency.

The court did not expand its previous decision in Jarkesy but it stressed that companies are under no obligation to comply with FCC forfeiture orders, until a jury rules on the case. University of Michigan Law School Professor Daniel Deacon stated.

Deacon stated that he wasn't surprised by the result or the fact that Trump's government had defended the agency’s power.

Deacon stated that the Trump administration is aware of its ability to use the administrative state in its own interests, but it hasn't always opposed agency claims of authority.

DISGORGEMENT AUTHORITIES The 9-0 decision of the court, which supported a broad interpretation of the SEC’s disgorgement power, strengthened one of its key powers.

The dispute was about whether the agency had to prove that victims had suffered economic damage, also called pecuniary losses, before it could seek to surrender illegal profits.

Ongkaruck?Sripetch, a defendant in the case of Liu v. SEC, asked the court for clarification on a prior ruling. He was challenging a court order that had been issued by the SEC requiring him to pay back more than $3,000,000 in ill-gotten gain and interest relating to a financial crime case. In a case called Liu V. SEC, the 2020 ruling limited the amount of disgorgement that could be requested to the net profit of the conduct in question.

The court stated on Thursday that the Liu decision didn't bolster Sripetch in his case against the SEC.

Jose Lopez, a former SEC attorney and an attorney with the law firm Dorsey & Whitney, said that the court's decision "preserved the SEC's strongest weapon in its enforcement arsenal."

In several important rulings, the court reined federal agencies in.

The court has, in recent years, formalized the doctrine of major questions, a conservative legal principle that allows judges to invalidate actions taken by executive agencies that are "of vast economic and political importance" unless they can be deemed clearly authorized by Congress.

The court, in 2024, overturned another precedent from 1984 that gave deference to U.S. government agencies when interpreting the laws they administer. The "Chevron doctrine" had long been opposed by conservatives and business interests.

Brianne Gorod is the chief counsel of the Constitutional Accountability Center. A liberal legal group that backed the SEC and FCC, she called the rulings on Thursday a victory for regulators, and "everyone" who benefits when these agencies are able to perform their duties.

Gorod stated that "while this court has had a long history of favoring the interests of big business and making it harder for federal agencies to perform their duties, today's rulings are a reminder it is not always possible to anticipate what this court will decide."

(source: Reuters)