As Supreme Court decisions loom, a legal assault is weakening SEC's
power
Send a link to a friend
[June 11, 2024] By
Chris Prentice and Michelle Price
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A legal assault on the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission is chipping away at its powers to oversee Wall
Street and is likely to intensify with two imminent Supreme Court
rulings.
A U.S. appeals court last week overturned a major SEC rule imposing
stricter oversight of private funds, in a fresh blow for Democratic
Chair Gary Gensler's ambitious agenda to boost transparency and stamp
out conflicts of interest on Wall Street.
The court took the unusual step of denying some of the SEC's authority
to oversee investment advisers. That could make its other draft rules on
cybersecurity, outsourcing, and predictive data analytics, vulnerable to
litigation, lawyers said.
The ruling from the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
is another example of how business groups are using conservative-leaning
courts to overturn SEC rules, limit its ability to write similar ones
and bring enforcement actions.
While the conservative "war on the administrative state" aims to weaken
federal agencies across the board, Gensler's ambitious agenda has made
the SEC, which oversees around 40,000 entities, a top target.
"It's happening government-wide, and it's quite acute at the SEC," said
Satyam Khanna, a former SEC attorney who advised two former Democratic
Commissioners as recently as 2021. "The SEC oversees a vast number of
entities – funds, public companies, brokers, and more – and the
financial stakes can be high."
The agency is facing several other lawsuits from financial firms and
their trade groups arguing the agency is overstepping its authority to
impose ill-conceived and costly rules.
A Reuters review of Westlaw filings showed a sharp uptick in the number
of open appeals against the SEC in the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals from
2019 to last year, although it is facing litigation in other
conservative-leaning courts too.
Among the cases: hedge funds are suing in the 5th Circuit to overturn
SEC short-selling disclosures and in a Texas district court to kill new
Treasuries trading rules, while in March business groups including the
U.S. Chamber of Commerce, as well as Republican-led states, sued to
block SEC climate change rules.
The Chamber is among the most aggressive groups in litigating
regulations. In December, it won a 5th Circuit challenge to SEC rules
around stock buybacks and is tracking other draft rules for potential
challenges.
"The current SEC has engaged in remarkable amounts of regulatory
overreach," said Daryl Joseffer, chief counsel at the Chamber's
Litigation Center.
Reform advocates say the industry just wants to protect its profits and
that weakening the SEC will hurt everyday Americans.
Speaking to Reuters last Wednesday, SEC chair Gary Gensler did not
discuss the private funds ruling but noted that only a handful of dozens
of rules adopted under his leadership have been litigated. And the
agency has notched some notable wins, including in the 5th Circuit, on
diversity rules and proxy voting, legal experts note.
But Gensler also said the agency would adapt to adverse rulings.
"We do everything according to law and how courts interpret law. If the
courts interpret law differently than we thought, we adjust, we pivot,"
he said. He cited as an example the SEC's decision to approve bitcoin
products in January after a D.C. appeals court found the agency had been
wrong to reject them
[to top of second column] |
The headquarters of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
(SEC) is seen in Washington, D.C., U.S., May 12, 2021.
REUTERS/Andrew Kelly/File Photo
Trump appointed 54 judges to the U.S. appeals courts where many
suits against federal agencies are filed and pushed the Supreme
Court to a 6-3 conservative majority.
When asked if he felt the courts were stacked against him, Gensler
said: "I'm a huge believer in the American democratic system and our
constitutional system. We have three co-equal branches of
government. And that's a really important thing."
Most of the litigation alleges violations of the 1946 Administrative
Procedure Act which requires regulators to justify rules and allow
time for, and fully consider, public feedback.
Some cases lean on a 2022 Supreme Court decision which raised doubts
over whether federal agencies have the authority to tackle major
policy questions. That ruling was among the reasons the SEC scaled
back its climate change rule, Reuters previously reported, and was
cited in some of the March suits.
Crypto firms have frequently cited that "major questions" doctrine
when disputing the SEC's authority to regulate them.
The SEC has made significant changes to other major rules following
industry pushback, including on money market funds and activist
investor disclosures.
"Vigorous industry pushback in comment files often raises the
specter of litigation," said Khanna.
Gensler said the agency takes industry comments "very seriously."
SCOTUS LOOMS
This month, the Supreme Court is also expected to rule on two other
cases with major implications for the SEC.
One relates to its authority to use in-house judges with securities
law expertise to decide enforcement actions, which is often speedier
than going through the courts. Conservative Justices last year
expressed concern that it denies defendants a jury trial.
The case follows a 2018 Supreme Court ruling that the SEC's process
for selecting in-house judges violated the Constitution. Since then,
the SEC has dramatically scaled back its use of the tribunal, SEC
data shows.
The other SCOTUS case challenges a legal doctrine known as "Chevron
deference" which calls for judges to defer to federal agencies'
interpretations of U.S. laws deemed to be ambiguous.
Chevron is a bedrock of agency rulemaking. According to 2017
research published in the Michigan Law Review, between 2003 and
2013, Chevron was applied 66.7% of the time when litigating SEC
rules in circuit courts and in those cases the agency won just over
81%.
"It's highly likely that the court will overrule Chevron or sharply
curtail it," said Joseffer. Consequently, "agencies would succeed
less often in defending their interpretation of statutes, and as a
result one would hope agencies would be more cautious in their
rulemakings," he added.
(Reporting by Michelle Price; additional reporting by Carolina Mandl;
Editing by Nick Zieminski)
[© 2024 Thomson Reuters. All rights
reserved.]
This material may not be published,
broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Thompson Reuters is solely responsible for this content. |