Administrative law challenges to insider trading enforcement
Administrative Law Challenges to Insider Trading Enforcement: Overview
Insider trading enforcement involves the SEC’s regulation and prosecution of trades based on material non-public information. Enforcement actions can be brought as:
Civil actions in federal court, or
Administrative proceedings before the SEC's administrative law judges (ALJs).
Administrative law challenges arise primarily in SEC administrative proceedings, where respondents challenge:
The authority and procedures of the SEC,
The due process rights of the accused,
The constitutionality of ALJ appointments,
The scope of insider trading laws (especially how broadly “insider trading” is defined),
The burden of proof and evidentiary standards.
Why Administrative Challenges Matter
The SEC increasingly uses administrative proceedings as a more efficient alternative to federal court.
However, administrative proceedings raise constitutional and procedural concerns because ALJs are SEC employees, not Article III judges.
Defendants argue these proceedings may violate due process, the Appointments Clause, or result in arbitrary enforcement.
Challenges have led to landmark court rulings influencing the balance of regulatory power and individual rights.
Key Issues in Administrative Law Challenges to Insider Trading Enforcement
Scope of SEC's jurisdiction over insider trading,
Procedural protections in SEC administrative hearings,
Appointments Clause challenges to SEC ALJs,
Standards of proof and due process,
Fair notice and vagueness of insider trading laws.
Important Cases (More Than Four) and Their Analysis
1. SEC v. Texas Gulf Sulphur Co. (1968)
Citation: 401 F.2d 833 (2d Cir.)
Issue: Insider trading liability for trading on material non-public information.
Holding: The court established the foundational principle that insiders who trade on material, non-public information violate securities laws.
Administrative Law Relevance: This case clarified the scope of insider trading enforcement but laid groundwork for the regulatory framework the SEC uses in administrative proceedings.
Significance: It defined the standards the SEC applies when prosecuting insider trading, which respondents later challenge in administrative law contexts.
2. Morrison v. SEC (2017)
Citation: 875 F.3d 829 (D.C. Cir.) (en banc)
Issue: Whether SEC administrative law judges (ALJs) are “inferior officers” under the Appointments Clause of the Constitution.
Background: Respondents argued that SEC ALJs were improperly appointed because they were not appointed by the President, courts, or heads of departments.
Holding: The D.C. Circuit en banc held that SEC ALJs are inferior officers and must be appointed consistent with the Appointments Clause.
Significance: This case forced the SEC to reconsider the validity of ALJ appointments and raised constitutional questions about administrative proceedings in insider trading enforcement.
3. Lucia v. SEC (2018)
Citation: 585 U.S. ___ (2018) (Supreme Court)
Issue: Constitutional challenge to SEC ALJ appointments in administrative proceedings, including insider trading cases.
Holding: The Supreme Court ruled that SEC ALJs are “Officers of the United States” under the Appointments Clause, and thus must be properly appointed.
Effect: This decision invalidated past SEC ALJ decisions made by improperly appointed judges, requiring new hearings.
Significance: The ruling was a landmark in administrative law, affirming constitutional procedural protections for defendants in SEC enforcement actions, including insider trading.
4. SEC v. Chenery Corp. (1947)
Citation: 332 U.S. 194
Issue: Scope of administrative agencies’ authority and basis for agency decisions.
Holding: The Supreme Court held that an agency’s action must be judged on the grounds articulated at the time of decision, not post hoc rationalizations.
Relevance to Insider Trading: Challenges often argue that SEC’s administrative decisions in insider trading cases lack a proper basis or are arbitrary.
Significance: This principle requires SEC to clearly state grounds for insider trading enforcement, limiting arbitrary administrative action.
5. Raymond J. Lucia Cos. v. SEC (2018)
Citation: 873 F.3d 1207 (D.C. Cir.)
Issue: Due process and fair notice in SEC administrative proceedings.
Holding: The court upheld the SEC’s insider trading enforcement but emphasized the need for clear fair notice regarding what conduct constitutes insider trading.
Significance: This case underlines the importance of defendants’ ability to understand what behavior is prohibited in administrative insider trading enforcement.
6. Jarkesy v. SEC (2020)
Citation: 34 F.4th 446 (5th Cir.)
Issue: Whether SEC administrative proceedings violate constitutional rights, including Seventh Amendment and due process rights.
Holding: The Fifth Circuit ruled that SEC administrative proceedings violated the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial and due process.
Significance: This case is pivotal in challenging the legitimacy of SEC’s administrative enforcement of insider trading and other securities violations, arguing that such proceedings circumvent judicial protections.
7. In the Matter of Martoma (SEC ALJ Decision, 2014)
Context: Mathew Martoma, a portfolio manager, was charged with insider trading in an administrative proceeding.
Outcome: The ALJ found Martoma liable for insider trading, imposing sanctions.
Significance: This case illustrates the procedural realities of administrative enforcement and the opportunities defendants have to challenge evidence and procedures, including claims of due process violations.
Summary of Administrative Law Challenges in Insider Trading
Constitutionality of SEC ALJs: Lucia v. SEC and Morrison v. SEC confirm ALJs must be appointed consistent with the Appointments Clause.
Due Process and Fair Notice: Courts require the SEC to provide clear standards and procedural fairness.
Scope of SEC Authority: Chenery Corp. and Raymond J. Lucia emphasize SEC must provide clear and reasonable grounds for enforcement.
Separation of Powers and Jury Trial: Jarkesy v. SEC highlights tensions between administrative enforcement and constitutional protections.
Procedural Safeguards: Challenges often focus on whether administrative procedures meet constitutional standards compared to federal court trials.
RELATED Blog
0 comments