Judicial review of SEC enforcement penalties
📘 I. Overview of SEC Enforcement and Judicial Review
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) enforces federal securities laws through:
Civil enforcement in federal courts,
Administrative proceedings (before administrative law judges, or ALJs),
Imposing civil monetary penalties, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains, injunctions, and bans on future participation in the securities industry.
Courts review SEC penalties on grounds such as:
Statutory authority,
Due process,
Excessive fines or abuse of discretion,
Separation of powers and constitutional structure,
Adequacy of evidence and reasoned decision-making.
📚 II. Landmark and Influential Cases
1. SEC v. Texas Gulf Sulphur Co., 401 F.2d 833 (2d Cir. 1968)
📌 Facts:
SEC alleged insider trading by company executives who bought stock based on confidential information about a mineral discovery.
🏛️ Holding:
Court upheld SEC’s enforcement action and clarified that material non-public information must be disclosed or abstained from.
Affirmed SEC’s authority to seek injunctive relief and penalties in federal court.
💡 Significance:
Set a precedent for judicial support of SEC enforcement in insider trading cases.
One of the earliest and most influential interpretations of Rule 10b-5.
2. SEC v. Chenery Corp. (Chenery II), 332 U.S. 194 (1947)
📌 Facts:
SEC denied a reorganization plan proposed by utility company executives, who had acquired stock during the plan’s pendency.
🏛️ Holding:
Upheld the SEC's action, stating that agencies may act through adjudication or rulemaking.
However, their decisions must be based on the reasoning they provide at the time.
💡 Significance:
Cemented the principle that courts will review the record and reasoning used by the SEC, not substitute their own.
Influential in limiting judicial overreach in reviewing enforcement decisions.
3. Kokesh v. SEC, 581 U.S. 455 (2017)
📌 Facts:
SEC sought disgorgement of profits from a fraudulent investment adviser going back more than five years.
🏛️ Holding:
Supreme Court held that disgorgement is a "penalty" for purposes of the 5-year statute of limitations under 28 U.S.C. § 2462.
The SEC cannot seek disgorgement for violations occurring more than five years prior.
💡 Significance:
Limited the SEC’s reach in long-past enforcement actions.
Established disgorgement as punitive, not purely remedial, affecting future penalty calculations.
4. Liu v. SEC, 591 U.S. ___ (2020)
📌 Facts:
The SEC imposed a disgorgement penalty on a couple who misused investor funds from an EB-5 visa project.
🏛️ Holding:
Supreme Court upheld disgorgement as a valid equitable remedy only if it is not punitive and funds are returned to harmed investors.
Disgorgement must be limited to net profits and not imposed jointly and severally unless appropriate.
💡 Significance:
Clarified the limits of the SEC's authority to impose disgorgement in civil court.
Required that funds must benefit harmed investors, not merely go to the U.S. Treasury.
5. Jarkesy v. SEC, 34 F.4th 446 (5th Cir. 2022)
📌 Facts:
SEC brought an administrative enforcement action imposing civil penalties through its own ALJs. Jarkesy challenged the constitutionality of the process.
🏛️ Holding:
5th Circuit ruled that:
The use of SEC administrative proceedings violated the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial in civil penalties.
Congress improperly delegated legislative power by letting the SEC choose the forum (court vs. ALJ).
SEC ALJs were unconstitutionally protected from removal by multiple layers of for-cause protection.
💡 Significance:
This case shook the foundations of the SEC’s in-house enforcement regime.
Set the stage for Supreme Court review (which occurred in 2024, see next case).
6. SEC v. Jarkesy (U.S. Supreme Court – 2024)
📌 Facts:
Affirming the above challenge, the Supreme Court reviewed the constitutionality of SEC’s ability to impose penalties via ALJs without jury trials.
🏛️ Holding:
The Supreme Court ruled that SEC cannot impose civil penalties in administrative proceedings without offering a jury trial, as these are legal—not equitable—claims.
Declared that administrative tribunals in such contexts violate the Seventh Amendment.
💡 Significance:
Transformative decision that significantly reduces the SEC’s power to impose penalties administratively.
SEC must now bring civil penalty cases to Article III courts with jury trials, not before its own judges.
7. Lucia v. SEC, 585 U.S. ___ (2018)
📌 Facts:
Raymond Lucia, an investment adviser, challenged an SEC administrative law judge’s appointment as unconstitutional.
🏛️ Holding:
The Supreme Court ruled that SEC ALJs are "officers of the United States" under the Appointments Clause and must be appointed by the President or agency head, not staff.
💡 Significance:
Invalidated many SEC ALJ decisions made under improper appointments.
Forced the SEC to reappoint ALJs lawfully and rehear pending enforcement cases.
🧩 III. Legal Doctrines and Judicial Review Standards
| Doctrine | Application to SEC Enforcement |
|---|---|
| APA (Arbitrary & Capricious) | Federal courts review SEC enforcement for reasonableness, fairness, and procedural compliance. |
| Chevron Deference | Courts may defer to SEC's reasonable interpretations of ambiguous statutes (though Chevron is being narrowed). |
| Separation of Powers | Courts scrutinize SEC adjudications and appointments for constitutional consistency. |
| Due Process | Penalties must be based on clear rules and fair proceedings. |
| Excessive Fines Clause | Courts have occasionally reviewed whether SEC fines are disproportionate to the misconduct. |
📊 IV. Summary Table
| Case | Key Issue | Outcome | Legal Impact |
|---|---|---|---|
| Texas Gulf Sulphur (1968) | Insider trading enforcement | SEC authority affirmed | Defined Rule 10b-5 enforcement scope |
| Chenery II (1947) | Basis for agency decisions | Agency must justify decisions on the record | Ensured transparency in decision-making |
| Kokesh (2017) | Is disgorgement a penalty? | Yes, and subject to 5-year limit | Limited long-term enforcement |
| Liu (2020) | Scope of disgorgement | Allowed, but must be equitable | Sharpened disgorgement limits |
| Lucia (2018) | ALJ appointment | Appointment unconstitutional | ALJ regime reset |
| Jarkesy (2024) | Admin penalties without jury | Unconstitutional | Major limit on in-house SEC enforcement |
🏁 V. Conclusion
The judicial review of SEC enforcement penalties has evolved dramatically, especially in recent years. Courts have increasingly:
Constrained administrative enforcement powers, especially regarding penalties,
Required constitutional procedures like jury trials and proper appointments,
Limited remedies like disgorgement to avoid punitive overreach,
Ensured that SEC enforcement aligns with statutory and constitutional guarantees.
As of 2024, civil penalties must generally be imposed through Article III courts, not SEC administrative proceedings—a landmark shift in financial regulation and administrative law.
RELATED Blog
0 comments