Justice Sotomayor expressed concern over the Supreme Court’s conservative majority curbing the authority of federal agencies, specifically the SEC.
On June 27, 2024, Justice Sonia Sotomayor delivered a dissenting opinion in response to the Supreme Court’s ruling that restricts the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) ability to enforce securities laws. She accused the court’s conservative majority of seizing power and undermining the authority of federal agencies, which has been a recurring theme in recent rulings.
Sotomayor referred to the decision as part of a “disconcerting trend” where the court has increasingly limited the power of regulators. She pointed to other rulings that made it easier for presidents to fire heads of independent agencies and reduced the authority of in-house judges. These actions, according to Sotomayor, are a “power grab” by the court, consolidating authority at the top and weakening regulatory oversight.
The June 27 ruling, in a 6-3 decision, found that the adjudication of cases by the SEC’s in-house judges violates the right to trial by jury. This decision could set a precedent affecting other federal agencies that rely on similar internal procedures for resolving cases. The court’s conservative majority, which is often aligned with business interests, was sympathetic to arguments that these agencies’ powers should be curbed.
In her dissent, Sotomayor emphasized the broader implications of the court’s actions, which critics have labeled as an ongoing attack on what is referred to as “the administrative state.” This state encompasses the vast array of independent regulatory agencies that implement and enforce laws across different sectors.
The SEC ruling is just one of several cases being considered this term that involve challenges to the regulatory authority of federal agencies. Sotomayor’s comments reflect growing concern among liberal justices regarding the court’s role in limiting the power of these agencies, particularly in sectors like finance, healthcare, and environmental regulation.
By reading a summary of her dissent from the bench, Sotomayor signaled her strong opposition to the decision. This is a rare move, used when justices want to express their discontent with a ruling. Her outspoken stance on the issue underscores the ideological divide between the court’s conservative and liberal wings regarding the role of federal agencies in American governance.
The ruling is expected to have lasting consequences for how federal agencies enforce regulations, particularly in terms of their independence and the methods used to adjudicate disputes. Critics fear that the decision could embolden more business-backed efforts to reduce regulatory oversight, potentially undermining protections for consumers and investors.
