In That Case: Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy
The Justice Insiders Podcast: Jarkesy’s Implications for the Administrative State
5 Key Takeaways | ITC Litigation and Enforcement Conference
Recent Trends in Article III Standing - The Consumer Finance Podcast
AGG Talks: Background Screening - A Refresher on Responding to Consumer File Requests under Section 609 of the FCRA
#WorkforceWednesday: SCOTUS in Review, Biden Acts to Limit Non-Competes, NY HERO Act Model Safety Plans - Employment Law This Week®
SCOTUS Watch: The ACA and Key Health Law Areas Justice Barrett Could Impact - Diagnosing Health Care Podcast
Podcast: Texas v. United States of America
Polsinelli Podcasts - Supreme Court Closes Gap on Bankruptcy Issue
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that defendants in securities fraud cases brought by the SEC are entitled by the Seventh Amendment to have the SEC’s claims for civil money penalties decided by a jury and not in an...more
In this episode, co-host Michael Dawson is joined by Noah Rosenblum, an assistant professor of law at NYU and former WilmerHale summer associate, to discuss the Supreme Court’s decision in Securities and Exchange Commission...more
The end of the Supreme Court’s recent term saw two major decisions in the field of administrative law: Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Securities & Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy. The Loper Bright decision, which...more
The U.S. Supreme Court held that when the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) seeks civil penalties against a defendant for securities fraud, the Seventh Amendment of the U.S. Constitution entitles the defendant to a...more
Host Gregg N. Sofer welcomes back to the podcast Richard Epstein, Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law at New York University Law School, and Steve Renau, Husch Blackwell’s Head of Thought Leadership, to discuss the U.S....more
Suppose that your nemesis has a legal beef with you, and you learn that the law allows him to appoint one of his employees to judge the case. Shocked? You should be. Yet federal agency adjudication works the same way. How...more
Last week the U.S. Supreme Court held in SEC v. Jarkesy that a defendant in a securities fraud suit has the right to be tried by a jury in an Article III court, rather than before an agency’s own tribunal. The Court’s...more
In a landmark decision issued last week, SEC v. Jarkesy, the Supreme Court held that the Seventh Amendment guarantees a defendant a jury trial when the SEC seeks civil penalties against the defendant for committing securities...more
For more than a decade, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) has been able to bring enforcement actions in either federal court or the agency’s internal venue. Not anymore. On June 27, 2024, the U.S....more
The U.S. Supreme Court held that the Seventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution entitles a defendant to a jury trial when the Securities and Exchange Commission seeks to impose civil penalties for violations of the federal...more
The Constitution requires judicial independence in Article III. As Hamilton observed in “Federalist 78”: “The standard of good behavior for the continuance in office of the judicial magistracy . . . . is the best expedient...more
Today, the Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari in seven cases: Food and Drug Administration v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine; Danco Laboratories, L.L.C. v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, Nos....more
Earlier this month, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a procedural decision that has the potential to dismantle the Securities and Exchange Commission’s ability to litigate cases administratively. On April 14, 2023, the Supreme...more
When the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) decides to pursue formal enforcement proceedings against a company or individual, it can choose whether to do so in an Article III court, or through the SEC’s own...more
On May 18, 2022, the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued its decision in Jarkesy v. SEC, vacating a Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) decision in an enforcement action brought as an administrative...more
The FTC, and antitrust enforcement in general, are having their moment. For example, in early January the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in AMG Capital Management v. Federal Trade Commission, a case questioning the FTC’s...more
This past Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court announced that it has agreed to decide whether the CFPB’s single-director-removable-only-for-cause structure is constitutional. The Court granted Seila Law’s petition for a writ of...more
Under constitutional principles of United States law, states generally enjoy sovereign immunity. This immunity, enshrined in the 11th amendment of the US Constitution, bars private parties from bringing lawsuits against the...more
In a precedential decision, issued June 14, 2019, the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s ruling against the University of Minnesota, declining to dismiss petitions for inter partes review (“IPR”). The court rejected the...more
In Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC, the Supreme Court ruled that inter partes reviews (IPRs) do not improperly divest the courts of their judicial authority and do not violate the Seventh...more
On March 12, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit heard oral argument in All American Check Cashing’s interlocutory appeal from the district court’s ruling upholding the CFPB’s constitutionality....more
In light of the Supreme Court of the United States decision in SAS Institute v. Iancu (IP Update, Vol. 21, No. 5), the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit remanded an appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board...more
On April 24, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 7-2 decision, held that inter partes review (IPR) proceedings conducted by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) do not violate Article III or implicate the Seventh Amendment. ...more
Anyone reading this post is likely well aware that on April 24 the Supreme Court put an end to the PTAB’s practice of instituting inter partes review (IPR) on less than all claims challenged in an IPR petition in SAS...more
The PTAB’s new guidance in light of a recent Supreme Court ruling changes the dynamics for patent owners and petitioners. Key Points: ..Partial institutions are no longer permitted. The PTAB will review all petitioned...more