Tag: Supreme Court

The World of Financial Regulation Gets Weird…Again

There’s yet more strangeness afoot in the world of financial regulation.  No, it’s not the CFPB this time.  It’s the generally more staid Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).  Earlier this week, the Department of Justice weighed in on Lucia v. SEC, a case challenging the constitutionality of the SEC’s in-house judges, known as Administrative Law Judges (ALJs).  What is strange is that the DOJ sided with Raymond Lucia and against the SEC.  Seemingly in response, the SEC took action and ratified the appointment of its ALJs, a move it had been resisting for some time. 

The case is currently with the Supreme Court where the Court is considering whether it will hear and decide the matter.  The question is whether ALJs are “mere employees” or are instead “inferior officers.”  If the latter, their appointment is subject to the appointments clause in the Constitution, which permits Congress to “vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.”  Since the process for appointing ALJs has (until recently) not been done by any of these, if they are indeed inferior officers, their appointment would be unconstitutional. 

Cato has filed an amicus brief in support of Lucia.  Given the great discretion that ALJs wield – hearing and ruling on both the admissibility and credibility of evidence, presiding over hearings, and issuing opinions – it is strange to say they are not inferior officers.  Resting on the finality of the decisions alone seems insufficient.  And indeed in another case arguing the same issue, whether SEC ALJs are inferior officers, a federal appeals court in Colorado ruled that they are.  Since there is now a circuit split, with appeals courts in two circuits issuing opposite rulings, it seems likely the Supreme Court will hear the case to decide the issue.

The appeal to the Supreme Court is of a decision by the federal court of appeals in D.C., which ruled that, because ALJs’ opinions are not final and can be reviewed by the SEC commissioners, the ALJs are not in fact inferior officers.

The problem for the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals is that it already ruled on this question.  In Landry v. FDIC, the D.C. Circuit found that ALJs at the FDIC are not inferior officers because their opinions are not final.  This is the case on which the D.C. Circuit relied in Lucia.  Landry was also appealed to the Supreme Court, but the Court did not take it up. 

Speaking of Landry. When Landry was pending before the Supreme Court, just as Lucia is now, the Department of Justice weighed in on that case, just as it did recently in Lucia.  But that time, the DOJ sided with the FDIC, arguing that the lack of finality in ALJ decisions makes them mere employees and not inferior officers.  Exactly the opposite of what DOJ is now arguing in Lucia.

Another Bleak Day for Property Owners

Property owners have long suffered under the Supreme Court’s erratic rulings. It got worse today. In Murr v. Wisconsin, the Court ruled against the owners, 5-3, with Justice Kennedy writing for the majority, Chief Justice Roberts writing a dissent, joined by Justices Thomas and Alito, Thomas writing a separate dissent, and Justice Gorsuch taking no part. The problem isn’t simply with the majority’s holding and opinion, it’s with the dissent as well. Only Thomas points in the right direction.

This was a regulatory takings case arising under the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause, which prohibits government from taking private property for public use without just compensation. In separate conveyances in 1994 and 1995, the Murrs, four siblings, inherited two contiguous lots on the St. Croix River that their parents had purchased in 1960 and 1963. The parents had built an ancestral home on the first lot. They bought the second for investment purposes.

The trouble began in 2004 when the Murrs sought to sell the second lot, valued at $410,000, and use the proceeds to upgrade the ancestral home. But they were blocked by a 1975 local zoning ordinance that treated the two lots as one, even though they had long been deeded and taxed separately. Under the ordinance they had to sell the lots together or not at all. Out $410,000, the Murrs sued, claiming that the ordinance had deprived them of their right to sell their property.

Big Goings-On at Supreme Court as We Race to the End of Term

The Supreme Court today came down with opinions in two cases in which Cato filed a brief. First, in Murr v. Wisconsin, it unfortunately ruled against property owners in an important regulatory-takings case. Then, in Lee v. United States, it correctly found that a criminal defendant who had virtually no chance to win at trial—absent jury nullifcation, which was our focus—was still prejudiced by (and entitled to a new trial due to) his counsel’s wrong advice that he wouldn’t be deported if he pled guilty.

Murr: Whenever you see a court invoke a “multifactor balancing test,” you know it’s just making stuff up. Alas that’s what happened in Murr v. Wisconsin, where a family was deprived of significant use of its property—not to mention economic benefits—because of an unfortunate operation of local law. The Supreme Court compounded that harm by essentially deferring to state determinations of property owners’ rights, and did so by applying that “multifactor” standard that allows it to reach whatever result it wants. This ruling shows that in the grander scheme, as Justice Thomas noted in his dissent, the Supreme Court needs to reevaluate its regulatory-takings jurisprudence altogether. (For more, see Cato’s amicus brief.)

Lee: The Court was correct to give even seemingly hopeless criminal defendants the right to adequate legal repreentation. Jae Lee only took a plea deal because his lawyer repeatedly assured him that he wouldn’t face deportation. The fact that going to trial, where he had no legal leg to stand on, would’ve almost certainly resulted in a longer prison sentence is immaterial. It’s clear that for Lee, who was brought to the United States from South Korea as a child, the risk of being forced to leave the only country he knows was much more important than a longer prison sentence. Lurking under this case was the controversial doctrine-that-must-not-be-named of jury nullification, which was essentially Lee’s only chance for acquittal. (For more, see Cato’s amicus brief.)

Stay tuned Monday for the Supreme Court’s final opinions of the term (especially Trinity Lutheran), as well as decisions on whether to take up the travel-ban case, Masterpiece Bakery (vendors for same-sex weddings), and Peruta (Second Amendment right to carry). And maybe, just maybe, Justice Anthony Kennedy will announce his retirement—though if I had to bet, I’d say he sticks around another year.

Immigrants Trust American Governmental Institutions

Hudson Institute historian and political scientist John Fonte has written that immigrants are not patriotically assimilating.  Fonte blames this supposed development on many factors but frequently credits changes in public school curricula away from the nation building Americanization Movement of the Progressive Era toward a multicultural ethos today.  In previous posts, I have challenged Fonte’s claims about a lack of patriotic assimilation amongst today’s immigrants and have shown that his claims about the success of the Americanization Movement are based on anecdotes and that there as many that show it actually slowed assimilation.  

A more subtle reading of Fonte’s work is that he is worried about immigrants and their descendants weakening American political institutions by not supporting them as much as Americans whose ancestors have been here for many generations.  The General Social Survey (GSS) asks many questions of immigrants and their descendants that can help lessen Fonte’s worries. 

Don’t Compel Doctors to Promote State-Favored Programs

Like all states, California has licensed medical centers of every kind. One particular type, often known as a “crisis pregnancy center,” provides pregnancy-related services with the goal of helping women to make choices other than abortion. Based on opposition to these centers, the California legislature enacted a law requiring licensed clinics “whose primary purpose is providing family planning or pregnancy-related services” to deliver to each of their clients the following message: “California has public programs that provide immediate free or low-cost access to comprehensive family planning services (including all FDA-approved methods of contraception), prenatal care, and abortion for eligible women.” But the law also creates an exception for clinics that actually enroll clients in these programs—so, in effect, it applies only to clinics that oppose the very program they must advertise.

Several of these crisis pregnancy centers sued to block the law, arguing that it violated their First Amendment rights by forcing them to express a message to which they are opposed. But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld the law, holding that it regulates only “professional speech” and therefore should be reviewed under a more deferential standard, rather than the normal strict judicial scrutiny that applies to laws compelling speech. The centers have petitioned the Supreme Court to review their case; Cato has filed a brief supporting that petition.

Supreme Court Reaffirms the Presumption of Innocence

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court decided a relatively small but important case out of my home state of Colorado. Colorado, like many states, imposes certain monetary penalties and costs on convicted defendants. Those can include court costs, docket fees, and payments into victim restitution funds. What happens, however, if a defendant’s conviction is later overturned, either by a higher court or on a re-trial? Can the once-convicted defendants easily get their money back, as would seem to be only fair? Not in Colorado, which is (was) unique in requiring that exonerated defendants go to court again to prove their innocence by clear and convincing evidence before they could get their money back. Thankfully, the Supreme Court, in a 7-1 opinion (Justice Gorsuch only began participating in cases in the last two weeks), held that Colorado’s “Exoneration Act” violates the due process guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Nelson v. Colorado is a combination of two different cases. One concerned Shannon Nelson, who was convicted by a jury of two felonies and three misdemeanors arising from the alleged sexual and physical abuse of her four children. Nelson conviction was reversed on appeal, however, and on retrial she was acquitted of all charges. In the course of her ordeal, Nelson paid $8,192.50 in costs and fees.

Louis Madden, the petitioner in the other case, was convicted of patronizing a child prostitute and third-degree sexual assault. His conviction was later overturned by the Colorado Supreme Court, and the state declined to retry the case. Madden paid the state $1,977.75 in the course of his legal troubles.

Although Madden and Nelson were innocent of their crimes in the eyes of the law–remember everyone is innocent until proven guilty by a legally proper trial (Cato’s brief in the case focused on the deep historical roots of the presumption of innocence)–they were faced with having to prove their innocence in a subsequent civil proceeding if they were to get their money back. Instead, they went all the way to the Supreme Court, arguing that it was unconstitutional to require them to do anything more to prove their innocence.

Writing for the Court, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg made fairly short work of Colorado’s law. “The sole legal basis for these assessments was the fact of Nelson’s and Madden’s convictions,” she wrote, and “absent those convictions” Colorado has “no legal right to exact and retain petitioners’ funds.” Once the convictions were erased, “the presumption of their innocence was restored” and “Colorado may not presume a person adjudged guilty of no crime, nonetheless guilty enough for monetary exactions.”

Why Judicial Independence Matters

Late yesterday The Hill posted a short op-ed I wrote on President Trump’s nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch to fill the seat of the late Justice Antonin Scalia. As often happens, a couple of editorial changes, especially in the title, muted somewhat the central point of the piece. But even were that not so, that point is worth further attention.

It concerns judicial independence. As I wrote, facing a nominee with impeccable qualifications, Democrats are now crafting an indirect assault against Judge Gorsuch. Thus, they’re pointing to the president’s outrageous attacks on the judiciary, among other things he’s said, and contending that he’s imposed a “litmus test” on the nominee. So they’re demanding that Judge Gorsuch “very explicitly and directly” disavow the president’s remarks, which he has already done respectfully, but in addition that he “very specifically” make his own policy views known in the upcoming confirmation hearings (which we’ve just learned will begin on March 20).