Posted on 06/29/2024 3:05:42 PM PDT by nickcarraway
Justice Sonia Sotomayor called the Supreme Court ruling in SEC v. Jarkesy "a power grab." She's right, but in the wrong way.
The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that people whom the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) would like to levy civil penalties against for alleged fraud violations are entitled to a trial by jury. That decision, though consequential in isolation, will likely have effects that extend far beyond that one agency.
At the heart of the ruling is George Jarkesy Jr., a hedge fund manager who oversaw the investment advising firm Patriot28, LLC. The SEC accused him and the company of "misrepresenting the investment strategies that Jarkesy and Patriot28 employed," "lying about the identity of the funds' auditor and prime broker," and "inflating the funds' claimed value." Yet whatever you think of those allegations, the SEC's approach to handling the matter, as Reason's Jacob Sullum highlighted earlier today, was unsavory, to put it mildly, which included evaluating its allegations in-house, confirming them, and then imposing $300,000 in penalties. That's not to say Jarkesy is innocent of wrongdoing. It is to say that the SEC assessing the SEC's accusations is not a picture of fairness.
The decision came down along ideological lines, with Justice Sonia Sotomayor writing in dissent. It's an interesting schism. Sotomayor has a robust record on questions around related criminal justice issues and the constitutional rights of the accused. She's not alone in that: Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, for her part, wrote an undergraduate thesis on the coercive nature of plea bargaining, where juries are conspicuously absent, and as an attorney represented clients imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay, where inmates are held without charge or trial.
But here, according to Sotomayor, the jury trial requirement in this civil setting, as outlined in the Seventh Amendment, is "a power grab." She's right, but in the wrong way. It takes power from the federal government—which in some sense holds the monopoly on that—and gives a little of it back to the people. Jarkesy, as Justice Neil Gorsuch acknowledged in a concurring opinion, may very well be unsympathetic. But even potentially unlikeable hedge fund managers should be entitled to the same basic rights.
Those unhappy with today's ruling may be dismayed to learn that the core legal principle will almost certainly not be constrained to the SEC. But they may be surprised, in turn, to know that such defendants are not always the cartoon picture of corporate greed.
Consider the case of Sun Valley Orchards, a fourth-generation farm run by brothers Joe and Russell Marino, which a Department of Labor administrative judge ordered must pay the government over $550,000. The majority of that sum is in response to a paperwork violation.
A contractor failed to disclose on the company's forms for the H-2A visa program—which allows employers to hire migrants for temporary agricultural work—that it would offer migrant workers a meal plan. It is not against the law to do so, and Sun Valley did not charge its workers above what they are permitted to by federal regulation. It was a clerical error, and unless the owners can get before a jury who countermands the Labor Department's conclusion, the owners will find themselves in financial ruin. Their case, which got a lifeline today in the form of the Supreme Court's ruling, is pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit.
"Today's decision is loud and clear: If the government wants to punish people by taking their money, then it must go to a real court with a real judge and a jury," said Bob Belden, an attorney for the Institute for Justice who is representing Sun Valley Orchards in its appeal, in a statement. "The government had argued that cases by the government to impose money fines fall within a 'public rights' exception to the jury right, but the Court rejected that theory. When the government seeks to impose fines, that's exactly the kind of case that requires a jury."
That has not yet permeated some of the more progressive-leaning corners of Supreme Court commentary. But whether or not a defendant is sympathetic is, at the end of the day, irrelevant. What is imminently relevant, however, is that if you care about democracy and sticking up for the rights of the little guy, then trying to preserve executive agencies' monopoly power to sanction the public is not a hill to die on.
Much of the pushback essentially comes down to the following concern, well-intentioned as it may be: "This will make the government's job harder." To which I say: "Yes." As it should be.
You have not been paying attention. There is nothing SUDDEN about liberals disdain for jury trials. Liberals have always wanted to control how people live and they cannot stand the idea of other people not buckling under the weight of their rulings.
The right to a fair and speedy trial interferes with the state’s (their “state”) right to a speedy execution of their political opponents . . .
Inside every liberal is a tyrannical despot aching to get power........
“Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, for her part, wrote an undergraduate thesis on the coercive nature of plea bargaining,”
She was not at all wrong.
The Judiciary needs to get >10x more time efficient.
Just look at all of the Jan6 cases and the judiciary joke of >5 year asylum hearings.
Speedy trials are a total joke.
Mark Steyn has spent > 10 years in the DC Courts with the Mikey Mann Hockey Stick Lawfare.
Plea bargaining is being run as an extortion/protection racket.
The whole Legal System desperately needs reform.
Article and comments BUMP
Seventh amendment states:
“In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law”
I’m not lawyer but the Dodd law seems to violate the very meaning of the Seventh amendment!
Too bad that much of the Jury Pools strongly support fascist gov’t in the US [at all levels].
They are NOT my peers and likely not your’s either.
Send Dr. Jill to Gitmo’
Bill of Rights,
Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Because in their minds, the only “right” that matters is abortion.
ROE vs WADE, Joe Biden shouts!
The EPA will try enforces their rules against a homeowner and SCOTUS will eventually back the homeowner.
SCOTUS should strike all Agency rules.
I’d like to have military tribunals for traitorcrats.
They could just deem the fines to be taxes.
That’s why if a federal agency comes after you, take the time to reas the actual statutory law, and the case law. You can get it done within 30 days.
While you are at it read up on the civil or criminal procedures that apply. Lots of ways you can make life so miserable for them they might just leave you alone.
Had General Flynn done this, he could have had his case dismissed with a couple of months rather that billed into bankruptcy by his own attorneys.
The legal profession is not nor will SCOTUS hamper it’s ability to litigate at tax payers expense. In fact when a USG Agency sues you, you are being put in doubled financial jeopardy. The USG should be required to be 100% transparent in charging you, and also provide legal counsel if equal expense welder against the citizen; illegals get hised and deported.
There should also be a limit on tax revenge liability in jury awards.
I remember when liberals were pushing for ‘professional juries’... Which would have been the end of a true jury system.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.