Lucia v. Securities and Exchange Commission
| Lucia v. Securities and Exchange Commission | |
|---|---|
| Argued April 23, 2018 Decided June 21, 2018 | |
| Full case name | Raymond J. Lucia, et al. v. Security and Exchange Commission |
| Docket no. | 17-130 |
| Citations | 585 U.S. 237 (more) 138 S. Ct. 2044; 201 L. Ed. 2d 464 |
| Case history | |
| Prior | Raymond J. Lucia Cos. v. SEC, 832 F.3d 277 (D.C. Cir. 2016); petition for review denied by equally divided en banc court, 868 F.3d 1021 (D.C. Cir. 2017); cert. granted, 138 S. Ct. 736 (2018). |
| Subsequent | Raymond J. Lucia Cos. v. SEC, 736 F. App'x 2 (D.C. Cir. 2018) |
| Holding | |
| Administrative law judges of the Securities and Exchange Commission are considered officers of the United States and so are subject to the Appointments Clause. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Kagan, joined by Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch |
| Concurrence | Thomas, joined by Gorsuch |
| Concur/dissent | Breyer, joined by Ginsburg, Sotomayor (Part III) |
| Dissent | Sotomayor, joined by Ginsburg |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const., Art. II, §2, cl. 2 | |
Lucia v. Securities and Exchange Commission, 585 U.S. 237 (2018), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States on the status of administrative law judges of the Securities and Exchange Commission. The Court held that they are considered inferior officers of the United States and so are subject to the Appointments Clause and must be appointed through the President or other delegated officer of the United States, rather than hired. As "inferior" officers, their appointments are not subject to the Senate's advice and consent role.