The question
Whether the Seventh Amendment entitles a defendant to a jury trial when the Securities and Exchange Commission seeks civil penalties for securities fraud in its own in-house tribunal.
SEC v. Jarkesy
What the Court decided
The Court held that when the SEC seeks money penalties for securities fraud, the Seventh Amendment gives the defendant the right to a jury trial in a real court, not a hearing before the agency's own judge. Because the SEC's fraud claims are like common-law fraud suits, they must be tried before a jury.
How the justices split
6-3The Court's opinion
Roberts, joined by Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett
An action for civil penalties to punish securities fraud is legal in nature and closely resembles common-law fraud, so it falls within the Seventh Amendment's guarantee of a jury. The government cannot move such a case into an agency tribunal to avoid a jury.
Concurring
Gorsuch, joined by Thomas
The right to a jury here is reinforced by Article III and the Due Process Clause, not the Seventh Amendment alone, and the concurrence stressed the broader danger of letting agencies act as prosecutor, judge, and jury.
Dissenting
Sotomayor, joined by Kagan, Jackson
The dissent argued that Congress has long been able to assign the enforcement of new public rights it creates to agency tribunals, that the Court has upheld exactly this scheme for decades, and that the ruling threatens the in-house adjudication used across the federal government.
How we know · 3 sourced claims
The Court held that when the SEC seeks civil penalties for securities fraud, the Seventh Amendment entitles the defendant to a jury trial.
Source: syllabus, Held, at 22-859
The Court reasoned that an SEC fraud penalty action is legal in nature and resembles common-law fraud.
Source: opinion of the Court (Roberts, C.J.)
Roberts, C.J., wrote for the Court, joined by Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett, JJ.; Sotomayor, J., dissented, joined by Kagan and Jackson, JJ.
Source: syllabus, lineup