Markowitz v. Securities and Exchange Commission
- Clarke
- 1:23-cv-04495
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Markowitz v. Securities and Exchange Commission, Judge Clarke stayed the case pending the Supreme Court’s decision in Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy.
Alan J. Markowitz and the Securities and Exchange Commission; the district-court case is paused, and the order does not resolve Markowitz’s constitutional claims.
What happened
In Markowitz v. Securities and Exchange Commission, the parties jointly asked the court to pause the case while the Supreme Court considered Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy, which addresses the same constitutional issues.
Alan J. Markowitz challenged an administrative proceeding brought against him by the Securities and Exchange Commission. He alleged that the proceeding violated the right to a jury trial, the Constitution’s rules concerning presidential control over executive officials, and the rule limiting Congress’s delegation of legislative power.
Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke stayed the case. The parties must file a joint status letter no later than 30 days after the Supreme Court issues its decision in Jarkesy, explaining any effect of that decision and proposing how this case should proceed.
The detailed version
- Markowitz v. Securities and Exchange Commission · No. 1:23-cv-04495
- Clarke
- Aug. 17, 2023
Background
Alan J. Markowitz, a Certified Public Accountant, challenged an administrative proceeding that the Securities and Exchange Commission began against him on February 28, 2023. He asked the district court to declare the proceeding unconstitutional and to stop it.
The complaint asserted three claims: (1) the proceeding violated the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial; (2) the appointment and removal protections for the administrative law judge violated Article II of the Constitution; and (3) the Commission’s discretion to choose between federal court and an administrative proceeding was an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power.
On June 30, 2023, the Supreme Court agreed to review Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy. The questions presented there concerned the same three issues raised in Markowitz’s complaint. The opinion also states that the Commission had stayed the administrative proceeding on August 7, 2023, while the Supreme Court appeal was pending.
Request for a Stay
The parties jointly requested a stay, meaning a pause in the district-court case, until the Supreme Court decided Jarkesy. They argued that the Supreme Court’s decision was expected to significantly affect, and possibly control, the outcome of this case.
The court discussed five considerations used in the district: the parties’ interests in moving forward and any prejudice from delay, the defendants’ interests and burdens, the court’s interests, the interests of nonparties, and the public interest. The order states that all five considerations favored a stay because pausing the case would conserve the parties’ and court’s resources, would not prejudice third parties, and would serve judicial economy and the public interest.
Ruling
Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke ordered that the case is stayed. The parties must file a joint status letter no later than 30 days after the Supreme Court issues its decision in Jarkesy. The letter must address the decision’s impact, if any, on this action and provide the parties’ proposed plan for proceeding. The order did not decide the constitutional claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.