D.C. Circuit: SEC’s In-House Court is Constitutional

Previously, we advised that the Securities and Exchange Commission’s increased preference for bringing enforcement actions in its in-house court had triggered jurisdictional and constitutional challenges to SEC administrative proceedings (APs). See "Supreme Court Declines to Review Constitutionality of SEC In-House Court," Expect Focus Vol. II 2016. At that time, federal appellate courts had addressed only the pending jurisdictional issues, and declined to reach the merits of the constitutional challenges to the APs.

In July 2016, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals became the first federal appellate court to affirmatively rule on such challenges, finding that the appointment of the SEC’s administrative law judges (ALJs) is constitutional and upholding the constitutionality of the APs. In Lucia v. SEC, the court opined that the issue of whether ALJs are "inferior officers" depends on the officer’s final decision-making authority. Relying on precedent, the court held that ALJs lack authority to issue final decisions because the Commission may conduct a review of an ALJ’s initial decision, which becomes final only when the Commission issues a finality order. In sum, the D.C. Circuit held that ALJs are SEC employees, not "inferior officers," under Article II.

Given the D.C. Circuit’s expertise addressing administrative law issues, Lucia may buttress the SEC’s use of APs; however, respondents are likely to continue to raise other constitutional challenges to them (e.g., defendants’ Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial and deprivation of their constitutional right to due process).

©2026 Carlton Fields, P.A. Carlton Fields practices law in California through Carlton Fields, LLP. Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please use our Contact Us form via the link below. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites.