Dear Reader, The Georgetown Journal of Law & Public Policy is pleased to present the second issue of Volume 23. This issue unites timely scholarship on one of the most rapidly evolving legal landscapes of our time, administrative law, with cutting-edge analysis on artificial intelligence and corpus linguistics’ role in legal decision making, post-Chevron changes […]

In SEC v. Jarkesy, the Supreme Court rightly held that the Seventh Amendment required a jury trial for a case fundamentally similar to common law fraud, and it rightly limited the scope of the “public rights” exception to the Seventh Amendment. Grounded in historical and originalist methods, this essay makes four suggestions to continue along […]

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy—which held that Article III of the Constitution and the Seventh Amendment prohibit the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) from penalizing wrongdoers using non-jury administrative tribunals—was just the latest in a string of Supreme Court rulings that have reined in the power of administrative agencies and, in particular, agency law […]

In recent years, the Supreme Court has significantly checked the power of federal administrative agencies to change the law through the issuance of regulations. But in 2024, the Supreme Court turned its attention to the substantial power of agencies to enforce laws. In SEC v. Jarkesy, the Court held that the Constitution prohibited the Securities […]

For decades the U.S. Supreme Court has acknowledged that it has no definition of the public-rights exception. Recent cases, culminating in SEC v. Jarkesy, reflect a clear sense that the public-rights exception veered off path in the twentieth century and that it is time to rein it in. The Jarkesy Court recognized that the political […]

Last year the Supreme Court decided SEC v. Jarkesy. Of the three issues pre-sented, the Court ruled on just one of them: whether the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) administrative adjudication of civil penalties without a jury violates the Seventh Amendment. In the decision below, the Fifth Circuit decided two other issues related to the […]

For decades, the American people’s right to a jury trial under the Seventh Amendment was severely curtailed by Congress, the executive branch, and the judiciary. To implement “functional government,” Congress passed several statutes allowing executive branch agencies to proceed through juryless in-house tribunals, which the Supreme Court blessed through a series of decisions enlarging the […]

SEC v. Jarkesy holds that under the Seventh Amendment there is a right to a jury trial when the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) brings a securities fraud enforcement action with civil penalties. If the Supreme Court really means to move such actions from adjudication before an agency tribunal to adjudication by a jury in […]

The independence of the judiciary, rule of law, and trial by jury are hard won treasures of the American legal order. Over the course of centuries, the English people developed the common law and its courts. The power and independence of these courts have faced perennial challenges—from the King’s prerogative tribunals during the seventeenth century […]

Constitutional stare decisis as currently practiced at the Supreme Court presents a conundrum for formalists. Following precedent is a neutral rule of decision, but it is not an inexorable command. The Justices have articulated, both individually and in opinions of the Court, various criteria by which they evaluate whether to overturn constitutional precedents. But in […]

In the landscape of U.S. administrative law, few topics command as much intrigue and controversy as judicial deference to national security agencies. The Supreme Court’s decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo was a critical inflection point in the judiciary’s oversight of executive power. Traditionally, the Chevron deference framework has enabled courts to lean toward […]

In interpreting the U.S. Constitution, accuracy, transparency, and replicability are increasingly important. A recent poll showed that most Americans believe that United States Supreme Court Justices sacrifice impartiality for ideology. That is particularly problematic when a shocking number of Americans “know literally nothing about the Constitution.” For example, one in three people cannot name a […]