This Trump decision in front of the Supreme Court will have a far-reaching effect on how government bureaus handle enforcement decisions. In this case against the Securities and Exchange Commission, the use of Administrative Law Justices (ALJ) has been challenged as unconstitutional.
An ALJ works for a specific bureau and presides over enforcement hearings. The ALJ has all the powers of a regular judge. But who is he working for, justice or the bureau? The Constitution says how judges are to be appointed. This does not seem to fit the requirements. Read on.
As Written By Kevin Daley for the Daily Caller:
The Trump administration switched sides Wednesday in a case pending before the Supreme Court that could retroactively nullify tens of thousands of agency decisions.
The case, Lucia v. SEC, has major implications for the process by which federal agencies try or punish those in violation of laws or regulations.
The litigation concerns an agency’s decision to allow career bureaucrats to preside as the functional equivalent of judges during enforcement proceedings. These officials, called administrative law judges (ALJs), are hired by career bureaucrats. They are not appointed by the president, a court or an agency head, but they exercise significant authority on behalf of the U.S. government in official proceedings.
ALJs can, among other things, issue subpoenas, make decisions about the credibility of witnesses or the admissibility of evidence, and issues provisional rulings that are generally upheld on final review — if a final review occurs at all.
The Constitution requires that the president, the courts, or the head of an executive department appoint all “inferior officers” of the United States.
A group of investment managers challenged the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) use of ……
KEEP READING THERE IS MORE HERE: