Page 11 - Seventh Amendment News Today

The Supreme Court's conservative justices seemed sympathetic Wednesday to concerns that the SEC's use of in-house judges could violate jury trial rights.

The justices heard arguments over whether the Constitution allows the agency to pursue enforcement actions before its own judges instead of in federal courts.

The history is bogus. The arguments are baseless. Six justices are still gunning for the SEC.

The history is bogus. The arguments are baseless. Six justices are still gunning for the SEC.

(Bloomberg) -- The US Supreme Court’s conservative majority cast doubt on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s use of in-house judges, hearing arguments in a case that could strip the agency of a key enforcement tool.Most Read from BloombergBanking Escapees Make Billions From Private Credit BoomTesla’s Cheapest Cybertruck Will Cost $60,990 and Be Available in 2025Saudi Arabia Offers Iran Investment to Blunt Gaza WarThese Are the World's Most Expensive Cities to Live...

In a session that lasted more than two hours, the justices suggested people accused of fraud by the SEC have a right to go before a federal court jury.

The appeal from George Jarkesy has the potential to spill over and weaken the government's ability to enforce workplace and environmental regulations.

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments Wednesday in a case that questions whether Congress has the right to empower federal agencies to utilize administrative law judges.

The Supreme Court's conservative justices seemed highly skeptical of how the Securities and Exchange Commission conducts in-house enforcement proceedings to ensure the integrity of securities markets.

The Supreme Court's conservative justices seemed highly skeptical of how the Securities and Exchange Commission conducts in-house enforcement proceedings to ensure the integrity of securities markets.