The Supreme Court is set to hear arguments Wednesday in a case that, according to Forbes, could have broad implications about federal power — and help former President Donald Trump pursue his agenda of turning the government into his own personal army.
The basic upshot of the Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy is that "hedge fund manager George Jarkesy is challenging the SEC’s authority to have disputes heard by administrative law judges, after an administrative law judge found him guilty of committing securities fraud," the report explained.
He's arguing that he was denied his Seventh Amendment rights to a civil jury trial, and that Congress didn't have a right to give judges the power to hear these kinds of proceedings in the first place.
If the Supreme Court rules in Jarkesy's favor, it could have far-reaching implications. There are nearly 2,000 administrative law judges employed by the federal government, and they decide a broad range of disputes from Environmental Protection Agency enforcement to the Social Security Administration.
All of that could be upended.
ALSO READ: You might think the NFL is racist. An insider says he’s about to prove it in court.
Trump could be a beneficiary of the ruling as the case also argues that the president doesn't have enough power over administrative law judges.
That claim, the article notes, derives from "a legal theory popular among conservatives of the 'unitary executive,' which says the president should have unfettered control over the executive branch and be able to fire every federal employee, even if they’re nonpartisan civil servants" — something former Attorney General William Barr championed and Trump still supports.
"Trump has long suggested he wants to overhaul how civil servants are classified so that he can fire them at will if he’s reelected — part of a right-wing plan to eliminate what Trump supporters call the 'deep state' — and Vox notes the Supreme Court could use a ruling in Jarkesy’s favor to ultimately green-light that plan and other future Trump policies by extension."
This case — combined with others, like one challenging the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and another challenging decades of precedent saying courts should defer to federal agencies about interpretation of law — could dramatically shift how regulations can even be made and enforced, in ways that benefit Trump and the Republican Party, Forbes reported.
