Publication
Judicial Review: what do you need to know?
Judicial review allows a party to challenge the lawfulness of a decision or action made by a public body.
United States | Publication | May 2022
In a watershed opinion, a divided panel of the Fifth Circuit has ruled that the United States Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC) system of in-house administrative tribunals is unconstitutional. The case, Jarkesy v. SEC, No. 20-61007 (5th Cir. May 18, 2022), holds that (1) defendants facing securities fraud charges have the constitutional right to a jury trial under the Seventh Amendment, (2) the Exchange Act's grant of complete discretion to the SEC to decide whether to bring charges in an administrative tribunal or in federal court violates the non-delegation doctrine and (3) the SEC's administrative law judges are unconstitutionally insulated from removal in violation of the Take Care Clause. This decision follows on the heels of several Supreme Court decisions casting doubt on the constitutionality of agency administrative proceedings, Lucia v. SEC, 138 S. Ct. 2044 (2018), and the need for targets of agency enforcement to submit to those proceedings before raising constitutional challenges in the federal courts, Cochran v. SEC, 20 F.4th 194 (5th Cir. 2021) (en banc) cert. granted, --- S. Ct. ----, 2022 WL 1528373 (May 16, 2022); Axon Enter. v. FTC, 986 F.3d 1173 (9th Cir. 2021), cert. granted in part, 142 S. Ct. 895 (2022).
These developments merit close attention among public companies and those in the financial sector. Key takeaways include:
Publication
Judicial review allows a party to challenge the lawfulness of a decision or action made by a public body.
Publication
Welcome to the Q3 2024 edition of the Norton Rose Fulbright International Restructuring Newswire.
Publication
The English Court of Appeal has decided that an artificial neural network (ANN) was not patentable in Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks v Emotional Perception AI Ltd [2024] EWCA Civ 825 reversing the finding of the lower court (the High Court), and in so doing agreeing with the UK Intellectual Property Office’s (IPO) original rejection of the patent application on the basis of unpatentable subject matter.
Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest legal news, information and events . . .
© Norton Rose Fulbright LLP 2023