Javier Hernandez Elon Musk, the CEO of Tesla, and Mark Cuban, the owner of the Dallas Mavericks, have jointly submitted an amicus brief in support of the defendants in a Supreme Court case challenging the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). In this case, they emphasize the importance of not allowing the SEC to selectively determine whether parties have the constitutional right to jury trials or are compelled to engage in enforcement proceedings with administrative law judges who lack proper and meaningful oversight.
The amicus brief, filed alongside Phillip Goldstein, Nelson Obus, Manouch Moshayedi, and the Investor Choice Advocates Network (ICAN), pertains to the upcoming Supreme Court hearing of SEC v. Jarkesy, scheduled for November 29. This case questions the constitutionality of the SEC’s utilization of in-house judges. George Jarkesy, the plaintiff, argues that the SEC’s internal adjudication process, conducted by commission-appointed administrative law judges without a jury, violates his Seventh Amendment right to a trial by jury.
The amicus brief highlights that the SEC began handling more cases internally between 2013 and 2014 following a series of jury trial losses in insider trading cases. The brief underscores the concern that the SEC should not have the discretion to decide whether parties are entitled to their constitutional right to a jury trial or must undergo enforcement proceedings with administrative law judges who lack proper oversight. Unlike federal court proceedings, respondents in SEC administrative proceedings do not have the right to a jury trial or the protections of federal rules of evidence and procedure.
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in May 2022 that Jarkesy’s Seventh Amendment rights were violated, shortly after the SEC acknowledged in April 2022 that its staff had inappropriately accessed documents in numerous cases, including Jarkesy’s.
The Justice Department Solicitor General, Elizabeth Prelogar, argues that the appeals court’s decision was erroneous and that the Supreme Court should overturn it. The Biden administration shares this view, stating that maintaining the ruling could have significant implications across the federal government.
The attorneys for Musk and Cuban assert that the current structure of SEC administrative proceedings results in unequal outcomes for SEC defendants. They argue that the SEC’s preference for administrative proceedings, when federal court juries are readily available, contradicts its mission and harms the investors and markets it is tasked with protecting. Additionally, they highlight that the SEC acts as the sole fact finder and determines a respondent’s liability and punishment without involving a jury when it opts for administrative proceedings.
In conclusion, Musk, Cuban, and other amici call on the court to endorse the Fifth Circuit’s decision while reversing its order of remand to the Commission. They emphasize the need for the SEC to litigate appropriately in all circuits, not just the Fifth Circuit.
Musk has recently expressed a high probability of a “comprehensive overhaul” of the SEC. The regulator has sued Musk to compel his testimony regarding his acquisition of the social media platform Twitter, now known as X.
The involvement of Elon Musk and Mark Cuban in supporting this Supreme Court case against the SEC’s administrative proceedings underscores the significance of the issue and its potential implications for SEC defendants and the broader financial markets.
Table Of Contents
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) about SEC Administrative Proceedings
What is the background of the Supreme Court case involving Elon Musk and Mark Cuban?
Elon Musk and Mark Cuban have jointly submitted an amicus brief in support of defendants in a Supreme Court case challenging the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The case, known as SEC v. Jarkesy, questions the constitutionality of the SEC’s use of in-house judges and their authority to conduct proceedings without a jury.
Why are Elon Musk and Mark Cuban involved in this case?
Musk and Cuban, along with others, have chosen to support this case because they believe it’s crucial not to allow the SEC to selectively decide whether parties are entitled to a jury trial or forced into enforcement proceedings with administrative law judges. They argue that this practice lacks proper oversight and transparency and can result in unequal outcomes for SEC defendants.
What are the key points of contention in this Supreme Court case?
The main issue at the heart of this case is whether the SEC’s use of administrative proceedings, conducted by commission-appointed administrative law judges, infringes upon the Seventh Amendment right to a trial by jury. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals had previously ruled that George Jarkesy’s Seventh Amendment rights were violated in such proceedings.
What are the potential implications of this case?
The outcome of this case could have significant ramifications for how the SEC conducts its enforcement proceedings. If the Supreme Court upholds the ruling that the SEC’s current practices violate constitutional rights, it may necessitate changes in the way the SEC handles cases, potentially leading to more consistent and transparent processes.
How does this case fit into Elon Musk’s recent interactions with the SEC?
Elon Musk has recently predicted a “comprehensive overhaul” of the SEC. While not directly related to this case, his involvement in supporting this challenge underscores his interest in SEC practices and regulations. It’s worth noting that the SEC has also recently sued Musk in a separate case related to his acquisition of the social media platform Twitter, which adds an additional layer of complexity to his interactions with the regulator.
More about SEC Administrative Proceedings
- Supreme Court Case – SEC v. Jarkesy
- Elon Musk’s Prediction of SEC Overhaul
- SEC Lawsuit Against Elon Musk
