滑向山上:对证券交易委员会行政诉讼的宪法挑战

Thomas Glassman
{"title":"滑向山上:对证券交易委员会行政诉讼的宪法挑战","authors":"Thomas Glassman","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2641178","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Since the inception of the Dodd-Frank Act the Securities and Exchange Commission has come under fire for its increased use of administrative proceedings in adjudicating the agency’s enforcement actions. That criticism has come to several suits in federal court claiming constitutional challenges to the system generally and most recently, the Administrative Law Judges themselves. Until June of 2015, when Hill v. the SEC took place in federal court, the Government was unbeaten in when arguing against these constitutional challenges. Hill, however found that it was likely the SEC had hired their Administrative Law Judges unconstitutionally. The SEC Administrative Law Judges have progressively been given more power through Congressional legislation and the question became whether these judges were mere employees, or inferior officers under the executive branch. While I think it is likely that an appellate court would uphold such an interpretation, I do not think it will lead to less SEC administrative proceedings and could potentially cause financial harm to those with cases currently in such a proceeding.","PeriodicalId":114268,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Business & Securities Law","volume":"29 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-08-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Ice Skating up Hill : Constitutional Challenges to SEC Administrative Proceedings\",\"authors\":\"Thomas Glassman\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.2641178\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Since the inception of the Dodd-Frank Act the Securities and Exchange Commission has come under fire for its increased use of administrative proceedings in adjudicating the agency’s enforcement actions. That criticism has come to several suits in federal court claiming constitutional challenges to the system generally and most recently, the Administrative Law Judges themselves. Until June of 2015, when Hill v. the SEC took place in federal court, the Government was unbeaten in when arguing against these constitutional challenges. Hill, however found that it was likely the SEC had hired their Administrative Law Judges unconstitutionally. The SEC Administrative Law Judges have progressively been given more power through Congressional legislation and the question became whether these judges were mere employees, or inferior officers under the executive branch. While I think it is likely that an appellate court would uphold such an interpretation, I do not think it will lead to less SEC administrative proceedings and could potentially cause financial harm to those with cases currently in such a proceeding.\",\"PeriodicalId\":114268,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Business & Securities Law\",\"volume\":\"29 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2015-08-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Business & Securities Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2641178\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Business & Securities Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2641178","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

自《多德-弗兰克法案》(Dodd-Frank Act)出台以来,美国证券交易委员会(sec)因在裁决执法行动时越来越多地使用行政程序而受到抨击。这种批评已经出现在联邦法院的几起诉讼中,指控该制度普遍存在宪法挑战,最近一次是行政法法官自己。直到2015年6月希尔诉SEC案在联邦法院开庭之前,政府在反对这些宪法挑战的辩论中都是不败的。然而,希尔发现,美国证券交易委员会很可能违宪地聘用了他们的行政法法官。通过国会立法,美国证券交易委员会行政法法官逐渐被赋予更大的权力,问题变成了这些法官是仅仅是雇员,还是行政部门的下级官员。虽然我认为上诉法院可能会支持这样的解释,但我不认为这将导致SEC行政诉讼减少,并可能对目前处于此类诉讼中的案件造成经济损失。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Ice Skating up Hill : Constitutional Challenges to SEC Administrative Proceedings
Since the inception of the Dodd-Frank Act the Securities and Exchange Commission has come under fire for its increased use of administrative proceedings in adjudicating the agency’s enforcement actions. That criticism has come to several suits in federal court claiming constitutional challenges to the system generally and most recently, the Administrative Law Judges themselves. Until June of 2015, when Hill v. the SEC took place in federal court, the Government was unbeaten in when arguing against these constitutional challenges. Hill, however found that it was likely the SEC had hired their Administrative Law Judges unconstitutionally. The SEC Administrative Law Judges have progressively been given more power through Congressional legislation and the question became whether these judges were mere employees, or inferior officers under the executive branch. While I think it is likely that an appellate court would uphold such an interpretation, I do not think it will lead to less SEC administrative proceedings and could potentially cause financial harm to those with cases currently in such a proceeding.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Ice Skating up Hill : Constitutional Challenges to SEC Administrative Proceedings Lessons from SEC v. Citigroup: The Optimal Scope for Judicial Review of Agency Consent Decrees Taking the Series LLC Seriously: Why States Should Adopt This Innovative Business Form
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1