News
Chief Justice Roberts’s Two Landmark Opinions Turn Tide Toward Liberty
UNITED STATES – JANUARY 30: Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts listens to President Donald … [+]
Just in time for America’s 248th birthday, Chief Justice John Roberts has gifted our nation two landmark decisions that turn the tables on unlawful administrative power and turn the tide toward liberty. These cases do more to save Americans from being dominated by bureaucratic overlords than anything else the Court has done in at least half a century. The decisions in Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy and Loper Bright v. Raimondo (decided alongside NCLA’s case Relentless v. Department of Commerce) do not just right two wrongs; they deliver a one-two punch for independence. In different ways, each case changes the direction in which our ship of state was headed and steers it back on a course that is far more compatible with individual liberty and self-government than the tyrannical trajectory onto which the Court veered a century ago. Together they establish a legacy for The Chief Justice of the United States as a loyal defender of the structural Constitution and an ardent foe of unlawful administrative power.
A fuller examination of these two opinions will reveal just how rejuvenating they are. As Chief Justice Roberts notes in his Jarkesy opinion, the right to a jury trial was protected in the Constitution (in more than one place) in no small part because the colonists had personal experience with the monarch’s use of jury-less courts under the king’s control to adjudicate their alleged transgressions. So, when Congress started sidelining the federal judiciary and allowing federal agencies to go after alleged rulebreakers in their own tribunals, it had a familiar—if foreboding—feel. That individual rights suffered under this regime was as predictable as it was pernicious.
For the SEC, it was the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010 that dramatically increased the agency’s ability to herd regulated parties before biased in-house adjudicators. But whatever the legislative source of mischief, and sometimes there is not one (e.g., some of the adjudications at the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs are rooted in nothing more than an executive order), when agencies get to act as prosecutor, judge, and jury, they invariably abuse that combination of powers our Founders were so keen to separate and keep separate. For example, they bring cases that are marginal on the facts, on the law, or both. They pressure parties to settle rather than contest their innocence. They overcharge, they intimidate witnesses, they fail to turn over exculpatory evidence. Perhaps most outrageously—in part because SEC has been working feverishly to hide this grossly unethical conduct—they even have ‘control deficiencies’ whereby the prosecutorial staff downloads computer files from the adjudicative side of the agency. All those pathologies of administrative adjudication—and at least a couple dozen others—become much scarcer, and some nearly vanish, once the right to a jury trial in front of a real Article III court is restored.
Note that a mere ability to appeal to an Article III court of appeals, which has always been possible at least in theory, is not enough. By appeal time, the overwhelming majority of parties have already been forced into settlement—98% at the SEC. For those who do not settle, the administrative record is set. There is no jury at the court of appeals level to do fact-finding. So, only errors of law stand a chance of being corrected. But an ounce of jury-trial prevention on the front end stops a pound of factual problems that back-end appellate review cannot cure.
Critics of the Jarkesy decision complain that forcing agencies to bring enforcement actions in real courts will limit their ability to take wrongdoers to the woodshed. To be sure, it takes more resources to conduct a real trial than an ersatz in-house tribunal, so to the extent resources limit the enforcement actions agencies can bring, they will have to marshal their resources to go after the most deserving targets of enforcement now. But since when did respect for constitutional rights like jury trials or due process become an undesirable impediment to greater government control over Americans’ lives? And what happened to the presumption of innocence until proven guilty? Have administrative statists become so drunk with power or so smitten with statism that they presume every target of administrative enforcement is well chosen (and guilty) and that the efficiency gains from a rush to judgment outweigh the deliberative losses from jury trials?
Some jaundiced journalists have charged that big corporations are behind the campaign to restore jury-trial rights, as though honoring the Bill of Rights somehow provides cause to seek out suspect motives. In truth, George Jarkesy and his courageous counsel have been on a largely lonely campaign to fix multiple constitutional shortcomings with administrative adjudication. His fixation on jury-trial rights is explained by the simple fact that people with their proverbial backs up against the wall are motivated to try long-shot arguments and fight back hard enough to expose the cracks in what others mistook to be a rock-solid façade. Most voices in the appellate bar mocked Jarkesy’s counsel for trying this argument. Even when it succeeded at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, most of the Supreme Court bar remained skeptical at Jarkesy’s chances of winning with this argument on appeal.
Not only did Mr. Jarkesy prevail, but he secured a victory whose implications ripple to the furthest reaches of the administrative shoreline. The Chief Justice’s opinion for the Court holds that the SEC must honor jury-trial rights in fraud cases, a kind of charge that had a familiar common-law counterpart. But the opinion also sweeps broadly enough to encompass at least every federal agency that tries to mete out punitive financial penalties, not just the SEC. The opinion forthrightly observes that the Seventh Amendment extends to all cases except for those that the Constitution excludes, namely cases in admiralty and equity. And it focuses lower courts’ attention on the remedy that the government is seeking in a case. Where financial penalties are dispensed for punitive or deterrence reasons, most often jury trials will be required.
Public-Rights Exception to Jury-Trial Rights Narrowed
Much to the chagrin of the dissenters, the Court’s opinion also questions and ultimately cashiers much of the so-called public rights exception to Article III jurisdiction, which the Court had long used to justify denying jury trial rights pretty much any time Congress chose to entrust enforcement of a new statute to an administrative agency. Back in 1977, the Supreme Court in Atlas Roofing Co., Inc. v. Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission held that the Seventh Amendment does not require a trial by jury in administrative proceedings to enforce civil violations of federal ‘public rights’ statutes. Worse yet, the scope of public rights was said to broadly include “cases in which the government sues in its sovereign capacity to enforce public rights created by statutes within the power of Congress to enact.” That had meant that pretty much every statutory prohibition could be enforced with civil penalties without a jury trial, if Congress so chose.
In tossing aside that flimsy doctrine, The Chief Justice gave notice that the government cannot turn jury-trial rights into options only exercisable at the government’s discretion. Congress does not have the power to take away jury-trial rights. That is, it is not just that agencies cannot do this on their own, they cannot even do it with Congress’s explicit blessing. Indeed, Americans’ right to trial by jury matters most in cases against the government, so the idea that jury-trial rights are limited to torts and contracts and other cases against private parties is wrong. This historically learned and deeply rooted decision seems destined to permanently secure Americans’ jury-trial rights against encroachment by the administrative state.
Practically-speaking that probably means pushing a bunch of cases back into Article III courts where they belong, i.e., not in front of administrative law judges. That might require appointing an additional handful of Article III judges, even though the agencies will not be bringing the same volume of cases as before. If so, that seems a small price for taxpayers to pay in exchange for the restoration of their jury-trial rights as a bulwark against aggressive agency enforcement tactics.
[NB: Chief Justice Roberts did not stop there. Stay tuned for the second half of the analysis, covering the Loper Bright and Relentless cases.]
Note: Map shows the area with a shake intensity of 3 or greater, which U.S.G.S. defines as “weak,” though the earthquake may be felt outside the areas shown. The New York Times
A moderately strong, 5.1-magnitude earthquake struck in the North Pacific Ocean on Wednesday, according to the United States Geological Survey.
The temblor happened at 5:45 a.m. Pacific time about 40 miles west of Petrolia, Calif., data from the agency shows.
As seismologists review available data, they may revise the earthquake’s reported magnitude. Additional information collected about the earthquake may also prompt U.S.G.S. scientists to update the shake-severity map.
Subsequent quakes have been reported in the same area. Such temblors are typically aftershocks caused by minor adjustments along the portion of a fault that slipped at the time of the initial earthquake.
Aftershocks detected
Quakes and aftershocks within 100 miles
Aftershocks can occur days, weeks or even years after the first earthquake. These events can be of equal or larger magnitude to the initial earthquake, and they can continue to affect already damaged locations.
The New York Times
When quakes and aftershocks occurred
Sources: United States Geological Survey (epicenter, aftershocks, shake intensity); LandScan via Oak Ridge National Laboratory (population density) | Notes: Shaking categories are based on the Modified Mercalli Intensity scale. When aftershock data is available, the corresponding maps and charts include earthquakes within 100 miles and seven days of the initial quake. All times above are Pacific time. Shake data is as of Wednesday, June 3 at 6:03 a.m. Pacific time. Aftershocks data is as of Wednesday, June 3 at 8:01 a.m. Pacific time.
Xavier Becerra, Democratic gubernatorial candidate for California, and Steve Hilton, Republican gubernatorial candidate for California, shake hands while arriving for a gubernatorial debate at KRON Studios in San Francisco in April.
Jason Henry/Getty Images North America
hide caption
toggle caption
Jason Henry/Getty Images North America
SAN FRANCISCO — The primary election for California governor is too close to call, with vote counting continuing Wednesday. Democrat Xavier Becerra and Republican business executive Steve Hilton lead the field with Democrat Tom Steyer in third place.
In California’s unusual primary system, all candidates, regardless of party, appear on a single ballot open to any registered voter. The top two candidates then move on to the general election, even if they’re from the same party. This year, voters had 60 names for governor to choose from.
The winner will lead the country’s most populous state, where leaders often take on national political prominence. Incumbent Gov. Gavin Newsom is at his two-term limit and could be a Democratic contender for president.
Becerra, former Health and Human Services secretary under President Joe Biden, pitched himself to voters as an experienced political leader who isn’t afraid of President Trump, but his lead caps one of the most surprising and dramatic comebacks in recent state political history. As recently as April, polls were showing Becerra — also a former member of Congress and California attorney general — languishing in single digits in a crowded field.
In his remarks at his watch party in Los Angeles, Becerra noted his underdog status.
“Here in Hollywood’s hometown, we love a good underdog success story,” he said, drawing parallels between his campaign and his immigrant parents’ success story in California. “Guess what? The underdog stayed in the fight. Like my parents, I never gave up. Never stopped putting one foot in front of the other. Never stopped believing in the beacon-like goodness of California. And thankfully, neither did you.”
Hilton is a former Fox News commentator who also served as a political adviser to former British Prime Minister David Cameron. He was endorsed by President Trump in April, helping him to pull ahead of Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, the other major Republican in the race. Hilton has campaigned on the idea that California needs change after 16 years under total Democratic control.
The race is narrowing down after a tumultuous campaign
At his watch party in Huntington Beach, the British-born candidate — who became an American citizen five years ago — said it was the “honor of his lifetime” to receive over 1 million votes so far.
“Change is coming to California and it’s long overdue,” Hilton said. “We’re not there yet, but it’s looking good. It looks very much as if Californians really will have the chance to vote for change in November and take our state in a new direction.”
Democratic billionaire activist Steyer spent more than $213 million of his own money to boost his candidacy and push a progressive, populist message. While he was trailing Becerra and Hilton on Tuesday night, he said at his watch party in San Francisco that he remains confident he can close the gap in the days ahead.
“Together, we’ve scared the hell out of the corporate interests used to getting their way,” Steyer said. “It might take some time to figure out where this is going. We’re going to wait until every ballot is counted. We’re gonna give democracy a time to work. And we know we finished really strong.”
The early results are not certain to hold, in part because of unusual voting patterns in this primary election: Ballot-tracking data heading into Tuesday evening showed that Republicans were more likely to vote early by mail, while Democratic voters in this deep-blue state held onto their mail-in ballots or chose to vote in person. That’s the reverse of recent elections, which saw more Democrats voting by mail and Republicans tending to vote in person on Election Day.
The uncertainty on election night capped a race that remained crowded and unsettled to the end. To some extent, the race was defined by who wasn’t running.
Some of the state’s most high-profile Democrats — former Vice President Kamala Harris, U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla and California Attorney General Rob Bonta — all passed on a potential bid to succeed Newsom.
The race was disrupted in April when then-U.S. Rep. Eric Swalwell’s campaign for governor imploded amid allegations of sexual assault and harassment. Swalwell resigned from Congress shortly after the accusations surfaced and has denied assault allegations.
Swalwell had been gaining in polls and racking up high-profile endorsements, and his exit seemed to primarily benefit Becerra, who had been stuck in single digits in many polls. Ultimately, it quieted fears among Democrats who worried that the messy Democratic field could result in Bianco and Hilton winning the top spots in the June primary.
Marisa Lagos covers California politics at KQED and co-hosts the Political Breakdown show and podcast.
The U.S. Supreme Court
Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images
The Supreme Court on Tuesday cleared the way for Alabama to use a congressional district map favored by Republicans.
The court, in an unsigned order, overturned a three-judge district court panel that found that the map is “tainted by intentional race-based discrimination.” The court’s three liberals publicly dissented.
The ruling means that Alabama’s 2026 midterm elections will feature six Republican-leaning districts and one Democratic-leaning one, as opposed to a map with only five safe Republican seats. Democrat Shomari Figures, who represents Alabama’s Second District, will likely lose his seat as a result of the high court’s ruling.
The story of Alabama’s congressional map is long and tortured. It began in 2021, when the state implemented a new map to account for population changes in the census. The map featured only one majority-black district out of seven, even though the state is more than one-quarter Black.
Voters immediately sued, claiming the map illegally diluted minority votes in violation of the Voting Rights Act and the Constitution. Lower court judges agreed, ruling that the state must draw a map with two districts where Black voters have a realistic chance of electing their candidate of choice. The Supreme Court more than once has ordered Alabama to draw a compliant map.
But the state has refused and instead continued to litigate the case. On Tuesday, that tactic paid off.
What changed? In April, the Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority all but gutted what remains of the Voting Rights Act, ruling that states cannot purposefully draw districts that are majority-minority.
Alabama then asked the high court to reinstate the state’s old map, under the theory that this new ruling meant that it was permissible to use a map with only one majority-Black district. In an unsigned, unexplained order in May, the high court essentially reversed its previous opinions, and allowed Alabama to use the old map for the upcoming midterm elections.
This set off a flurry of activity in Alabama. By the time the Supreme Court issued its May order, absentee balloting had already begun, using the court-drawn map. So Republican Governor Kay Ivey cancelled elections and scheduled a special primary for August for the affected congressional races.
The case, however, was not over.
In its ruling, the Supreme Court had ordered a lower court panel to continue evaluating Alabama’s map in light of its recent Voting Rights Act decision. And just 15 days after that order, the panel, composed of three Republican judges—two of them Trump appointees—concluded unanimously that even under the Supreme Court’s new standards, the plan for a single black district was “intentionally discriminatory.”
So, once again, Alabama returned to the Supreme Court, arguing that the map was partisan, not racially discriminatory. In short, that the Republican legislature simply drew the map to elect more Republicans. And that under the Supreme Court’s new interpretation of the Voting Rights Act, the GOP map should be allowed to stand.
The court’s conservative agreed, writing that the lower court “did not heed the presumption of legislative good faith.”
The court’s three liberals publicly dissented, castigating the conservative majority for failing to abide by its 2006 decision in the case of Purcell v. Gonzalez. That decision declared that courts should not change election rules too close to an election.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in her dissent, said the court “debases the democratic process” and “corrodes the rule of law by rewarding Alabama’s gamesmanship and outright defiance of court orders.”
Tuesday’s decision is the latest in a series of Supreme Court rulings that could well reshape the 2026 midterm elections, making it much harder for Democrats to prevail.
-
Los Angeles, Ca1 hour agoPolice investigate deadly stabbing in Tarzana; suspect in custody
-
Detroit, MI1 hour agoDetroit Tigers sweep Tampa Bay Rays in win as Dillon Dingler stays hot
-
San Francisco, CA2 hours agoRetired San Francisco firefighter dies from lung cancer after Blue Shield denies treatment claims
-
Dallas, TX2 hours agoTrackdown: Dallas 7-Eleven robbery suspect wanted
-
Miami, FL2 hours agoThis new Italian restaurant in Brickell only has 10 items on the menu
-
Boston, MA2 hours agoVisiting Boston this summer? Here are 8 navigation tips you need to know.
-
Denver, CO2 hours agoDenver-ish Central Market? RiNo food hall vendors claim they’ve been pushed out
-
Seattle, WA2 hours agoNew Ben & Jerry’s location opening at Seattle waterfront’s Pier 54
