Wall Street's top regulator faces worsening battle in wake of Supreme Court ruling
By Chris Prentice and Pete Schroeder
WASHINGTON, June 28 (Reuters) -The Supreme Court's move to curb federal agency powers could curtail efforts by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to establish new rules to police Wall Street and invite more litigation, legal experts said in the wake of Friday's landmark ruling.
The court overturned a 1984 precedent that had given deference to government agencies in interpreting laws they administer. The decisionraises the specter of fresh grounds on which to challenge the markets watchdog in court as it rolls out new policies or seeks to regulate new corners of the markets.
The SEC is already fending off an increasing legal assault from public companies, major Wall Street firms and well-heeled cryptocurrency players.
The SCOTUS decision, made 6-3, is likely to tie the SEC's hands as it rolls out new rules, according to half a dozen legal experts.
The SEC did not respond to a request for comment. SEC Chair GaryGensler told Reuters this month that the agency pivots as required by courts' interpretation of the law.
The ruling is a "game-changer," said Richard Hong, a former SEC trial lawyer and partner with the Morrison Cohen law firm.
The SEC will likely have more reason to pause before acting when seeking to police new financial instruments, said Cary Coglianese, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania who specializes in regulation.
"It will make it more difficult for agencies to adapt their understandings of statutes in the face of new circumstances," Coglianese said.
The precedent, known as the Chevron deference after a ruling involving the U.S. oil company,had been cited by the SEC and other agencies in prior court cases to justify new regulatory efforts, as they deemed the activities within their purview. But now it would fall solely to a court to determine if the agency is acting within the law, which experts saidcould have a chilling effect.
Proponents of the approach argue that the Chevron deference allows federal regulatory bodies to adapt to changing times and circumstances. But the Chevron doctrine has come under growing criticism from conservatives, arguing it allows rule-writers to overstep their legal authorities.
While the SEC and other regulators have other tools on which to lean, Chevron has been a bedrock of agency rulemaking.
Between 2003 and 2013, Chevron was applied 66.7% of the time when litigating SEC rules in circuit courts and in those cases the agency won just over 81%, according to 2017 research published in the Michigan Law Review.
"Going forward, agency action will be under even greater scrutiny and there will likely be more opportunities for the regulated community to challenge agency rules and adjudications," said Varu Chilakamarri, a partner at K&L Gates.
Friday's ruling is the latest effort of the conservative "war on the administrative state", which aims to weaken federal agencies across the board. Gensler's ambitious agenda has made the agency, which oversees around 40,000 entities, a top target.
The SEC stayed this year's landmark climate disclosurerule due to legal challenges. A federal appeals court this month struck down its overhaul of private fund oversight on the grounds the agency exceeded its authorities.
“The challenge to the SEC’s climate rule was already poised to be a difficult fight for the agency," said Leah Malone, leader of Simpson Thacher’s ESG and sustainability practice. Friday's shift "raises even further questions about the survival of the climate rule, as well as other pending rule proposals that have been in the spotlight,” Malone said.
Friday's ruling is the second blow to the SEC's authority in as many days from the Supreme Court. On Thursday, the justices ruled the agency's reliance on in-house courts to handle enforcement cases was unconstitutional.
"If yesterday’s decision was causing tremors, causing some dishes to tumble out from the cupboards, today’s case is a Richter-7 earthquake," said Hong.
Reporting by Pete Schroeder and Chris Prentice
Additional reporting by Hannah Lang, Ross Kerber and Michelle Price; editing by Megan Davies and Rod Nickel
Actifs liés
Dernières actualités
Avertissement : Les entités de XM Group proposent à notre plateforme de trading en ligne un service d'exécution uniquement, autorisant une personne à consulter et/ou à utiliser le contenu disponible sur ou via le site internet, qui n'a pas pour but de modifier ou d'élargir cette situation. De tels accès et utilisation sont toujours soumis aux : (i) Conditions générales ; (ii) Avertissements sur les risques et (iii) Avertissement complet. Un tel contenu n'est par conséquent fourni que pour information générale. En particulier, sachez que les contenus de notre plateforme de trading en ligne ne sont ni une sollicitation ni une offre de participation à toute transaction sur les marchés financiers. Le trading sur les marchés financiers implique un niveau significatif de risques pour votre capital.
Tout le matériel publié dans notre Centre de trading en ligne est destiné à des fins de formation / d'information uniquement et ne contient pas – et ne doit pas être considéré comme contenant – des conseils et recommandations en matière de finance, de fiscalité des investissements ou de trading, ou un enregistrement de nos prix de trading ou une offre, une sollicitation, une transaction à propos de tout instrument financier ou bien des promotions financières non sollicitées à votre égard.
Tout contenu tiers, de même que le contenu préparé par XM, tels que les opinions, actualités, études, analyses, prix, autres informations ou liens vers des sites tiers contenus sur ce site internet sont fournis "tels quels", comme commentaires généraux sur le marché et ne constituent pas des conseils en investissement. Dans la mesure où tout contenu est considéré comme de la recherche en investissement, vous devez noter et accepter que le contenu n'a pas été conçu ni préparé conformément aux exigences légales visant à promouvoir l'indépendance de la recherche en investissement et, en tant que tel, il serait considéré comme une communication marketing selon les lois et réglementations applicables. Veuillez vous assurer que vous avez lu et compris notre Avis sur la recherche en investissement non indépendante et notre avertissement sur les risques concernant les informations susdites, qui peuvent consultés ici.
