Everything you need to know about ranked-choice voting in one spot.Click to learn more!

Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board

From Ballotpedia
New Administrative State Banner.png
Supreme Court of the United States
Free Enterprise Fund et al. v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board et al.
Term: 2009
Important Dates
Argument: December 7, 2009
Decided: June 28, 2010
Outcome
D.C. Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded
Majority
Chief Justice John G. Roberts •Clarence Thomas •Anthony Kennedy •Samuel Alito •Antonin Scalia
Dissenting
Stephen Breyer •Sonia Sotomayor •Ruth Bader Ginsburg •John Paul Stevens


Free Enterprise Fund et al. v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board et al. was aUnited States Supreme Court case that said the for-cause limitation on the removal of members of a board was an unconstitutional violation of theseparation of powers. The case was argued on December 7, 2009, as part of the Supreme Court's October 2009 term. The case came on awrit ofcertiorari to theUnited States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.[1]

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The case: The Free Enterprise Fund, anonprofit organization subject to the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, sued the board alleging that it was given executive powers without being subject to presidential control. The suit argued that such a structure violated theseparation of powers established by theConstitution.
  • The issue: Whether the Sarbanes-Oxley Act violated the separation of powers by giving broad powers to the board and insulating it from the president. Moreover, whether the board members were inferior officers not subject to presidential appointment rules and whether the act violated theAppointments Clause because of the structure of theSecurities and Exchange Commission (SEC).[2]
  • The outcome: The Supreme Court affirmed part of the D.C. Circuit's ruling and reversed part of it. The Court held 5-4 that the two-tiered good cause protection from removal violatedseparation of powers by denying sufficient authority to thepresident. It also held that at-will removal did not violate the Appointments Clause and that the SEC commissioners constituted the head of a department.[1]

    • Why it matters: The Supreme Court's ruling inFree Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board set a limit on the ability of Congress to create agencies insulated from presidential control.[1][2]

    You can review thelower court's opinionhere.[3]

    Background

    Administrative State
    Administrative State Icon Gold.png
    Five Pillars of the Administrative State
    •Judicial deference
    •Nondelegation
    •Executive control
    •Procedural rights
    •Agency dynamics
    Click here for more coverage of theadministrative state on Ballotpedia

    What is separation of powers?

    Separation of powers refers to a system of government that distributes the powers and functions of government among separate and independent entities. In the United States, the federal government is divided into three branches: executive, legislative and judicial. TheUnited States Constitution assigns each of these branches distinct powers and responsibilities. The separation of powers is sometimes referred to as a system of checks and balances because the Constitution provides each branch with certain powers over the other two branches.[4][5][6][7][8]

    Case background

    The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, passed after the accounting scandals at Enron and other companies, created the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) to regulate firms that audit public companies. The PCAOB was a five-member board appointed and removable by a majority vote of theSecurities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Congress intentionally tried to reduce the amount of political influence over the PCAOB, which led to the dispute. PCAOB members were only removable for cause after a vote of the SEC and the operations of the PCAOB were also largely independent of SEC oversight. The Free Enterprise Fund and Beckstead and Watts were firms subject to the PCAOB's authority and they sued to challenge the structure of the board.[9]

    Both the district court and D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the PCAOB.[10]

    Panel opinion

    TheUnited States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the district court. The court held that Title I of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 did not violate theAppointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution or theseparation of powers. The ruling said that the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) was under total control of theSecurities and Exchange Commission, which gives presidents an acceptable amount of authority.[3]

    “In appellants' view this statutory scheme vests Board members "with far reaching executive power while completely stripping the President of the authority to appoint or remove those members or otherwise supervise or control their exercise of that power." But their facial challenge ignores the entirety of the statutory scheme and runs afoul of the Supreme Court's instruction regarding the nature of the President's constitutional relationship with independent administrative agencies. Supreme Court precedent as we have it does not support appellants' singular focus on removal powers as the be-all and end-all of Executive authority, but rather compels a more nuanced approach that examines the myriad means of Executive control.


    We hold, first, that the Act does not encroach upon the Appointment power because, in view of the Commission's comprehensive control of the Board, Board members are subject to direction and supervision of the Commission and thus are inferior officers not required to be appointed by the President. Second, we hold that the for-cause limitations on the Commission's power to remove Board members and the President's power to remove Commissioners do not strip the President of sufficient power to influence the Board and thus do not contravene separation of powers, as that principle embraces independent agencies like the Commission and their exercise of broad authority over their subordinates.[3][11][12]

    		”

    Petitioner's challenge

    Thepetitioner, Free Enterprise Fund, challenged the holding of theUnited States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit arguing that the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) wielded broad regulatory and enforcement authority without presidential oversight. Moreover, the petition claimed that the DC Circuit opinion contradictedprecedent regarding separation of powers and Appointments Clause cases.[10]

    Certiorari granted

    On January 5, 2009, thepetitioner initiated proceedings in theSupreme Court of the United States in filing a petition for awrit ofcertiorari to theUnited States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.[13]

    TheU.S. Supreme Court granted the petitioner's request for certiorari on May 18, 2009. The case was argued on December 7, 2009.[2]

    Questions presented

    Questions presented:

    "1) Does the Sarbanes-Oxley Act violate the separation of powers doctrine by giving broad powers to the Board while simultaneously preventing the President of the power to appoint or remove Board members?

    2) Did the court of appeals correctly hold that the Board members were inferior officers under the direct supervision of the SEC even though the SEC cannot supervise those members individually and can only remove them for just cause?

    3) Does the Sarbanes-Oxley Act violate the Appointments Clause even if the Board's members are inferior because the SEC is not an official department or because the commissioners are not the head of the SEC?"[2]

    Audio

    • You can find audio of the oral argumenthere.

    Transcript

    • Transcript of oral argument:[14]


    Decision

    The Supreme Court held 5-4 to partly affirm, partly reverse and remand the decision of theUnited States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The majority opinion was written by Chief JusticeJohn G. Roberts and joined by JusticesAntonin Scalia,Anthony Kennedy,Clarence Thomas andSamuel Alito. JusticeStephen Breyer, joined by JusticesRuth Bader Ginsburg,Sonia Sotomayor andJohn Paul Stevens filed an opinion dissenting in the judgment.[1]

    Opinions

    Opinion of the court

    See also:Lucia v. SEC

    The majority held that the five members of the PCAOB were inferior officers of the United States who exercise significant authority under the laws. Those officers were not removable by the SEC at will and the SEC members themselves were not removable at will by the president. The Court ruled that the double-layer of tenure protection between members of the PCAOB and the president amounted to an unconstitutional violation ofseparation of powers. CitingArticle II of the U.S. Constitution, the Court said:[1]

    “Where this Court has upheld limited restrictions on the President’s removal power, only one level of protected tenure separated the President from an officer exercising executive power. The President—or a subordinate he could remove at will—decided whether the officer’s conduct merited removal under the good-cause standard. Here, the Act not only protects Board members from removal except for good cause, but withdraws from the President any decision on whether that good cause exists. That decision is vested in other tenured officers—the Commissioners—who are not subject to the President’s direct control. Because the Commission cannot remove a Board member at will, the President cannot hold the Commission fully accountable for the Board’s conduct. He can only review the Commissioner’s determination of whether the Act’s rigorous good-cause standard is met. And if the President disagrees with that determination, he is powerless to intervene—unless the determination is so unreasonable as to constitute “ ‘inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.’”


    This arrangement contradicts Article II’s vesting of the executive power in the President. Without the ability to oversee the Board, or to attribute the Board’s failings to those whom he can oversee, the President is no longer the judge of the Board’s conduct. He can neither ensure that the laws are faithfully executed, nor be held responsible for a Board member’s breach of faith. If this dispersion of responsibility were allowed to stand, Congress could multiply it further by adding still more layers of good-cause tenure. Such diffusion of power carries with it a diffusion of accountability; without a clear and effective chain of command, the public cannot determine where the blame for a pernicious measure should fall. The Act’s restrictions are therefore incompatible with the Constitution’s separation of powers.[1][15][12]

    		”

    Moving from the structure of the PCAOB to the way members were appointed, the majority held that their appointment method was consistent with the Constitution because the first part of the ruling makes Board members removable by the SEC at will. The Court also ruled that the multi-member body that composed the SEC was in effect the head of the department, which satisfied the remaining question about the way PCAOB members were appointed.[1]

    Dissenting opinions

    JusticeStephen Breyer, joined by JusticesRuth Bader Ginsburg,Sonia Sotomayor, andJohn Paul Stevens filed an opinion dissenting from the judgment. Breyer agreed with the majority that the members of the PCAOB were inferior officers, but he did not think the Sarbanes-Oxley Act interfered with the executive power in an unconstitutional way. He was also concerned that the majority opinion would "disrupt severely the fair and efficient administration of the laws." He reasoned:[1][2]

    “The upshot is that today vast numbers of statutes governing vast numbers of subjects, concerned with vast numbers of different problems, provide for, or foresee, their execution or administration through the work of administrators organized within many different kinds of administrative structures, exercising different kinds of administrative authority, to achieve their legislatively mandated objectives. And, given the nature of the Government’s work, it is not surprising that administrative units come in many different shapes and sizes.


    The functional approach required by our precedents recognizes this administrative complexity and, more importantly, recognizes the various ways presidential power operates within this context—and the various ways in which a removal provision might affect that power. As human beings have known ever since Ulysses tied himself to the mast so as safely to hear the Sirens’ song, sometimes it is necessary to disable oneself in order to achieve a broader objective. Thus, legally enforceable commitments—such as contracts, statutes that cannot instantly be changed, and, as in the case before us, the establishment of independent administrative institutions—hold the potential to empower precisely because of their ability toconstrain. If the President seeks to regulate through impartial adjudication, then insulation of the adjudicator from removal at will can help him achieve that goal. And to free a technical decisionmaker from the fear of removal without cause can similarly help create legitimacy with respect to that official’s regulatory actions by helping to insulate his technical decisions from nontechnical political pressure.
    Neither is power always susceptible to the equations of elementary arithmetic. A rule that takes power from a President’s friends and allies may weaken him. But a rule that takes power from the President’s opponents may strengthen him. And what if the rule takes power from a functionally neutral independent authority? In that case, it is difficult to predict how the President’s power is affected in the abstract.[1][16][12]

    		”

    Text of the opinion

    See also

    Footnotes

    1. ↑1.01.11.21.31.41.51.61.71.8United States Supreme Court, "Free Enterprise Fund et al. v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board Opinion," June 28, 2010
    2. ↑2.02.12.22.32.4Oyez, "Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Oversight Board," accessed August 23, 2018
    3. ↑3.03.13.2United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, "Free Enterprise Fund and Beckstead and Watts, LLP v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board et al." Opinion, August 22, 2008
    4. ↑Legal Information Institute, "Separation of powers," accessed September 20, 2017
    5. ↑National Conference of State Legislatures, "Separation of Powers - An Overview," accessed September 21, 2017
    6. ↑Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "Baron de Montesquieu, Charles-Louis de Secondat," April 2, 2014
    7. ↑US Legal, "Separation of Powers Law and Legal Definition," accessed September 20, 2017
    8. ↑Dictionary.com, "Separation of powers," accessed September 25, 2017
    9. ↑Cite error: Invalid<ref> tag; no text was provided for refs namedpetition
    10. ↑10.010.1Supreme Court of the United States, "Petition for a Writ of Certiorari," January 5, 2009
    11. ↑Internal citations and quotations have been omitted.
    12. ↑12.012.112.2Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    13. ↑SCOTUSblog, "Free Enterprise Fund and Beckstead and Watts, LLP v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board," accessed August 23, 2018
    14. ↑Supreme Court of the United States,Free Enterprise Fund and Beckstead and Watts, LLP v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, argued December 7, 2009
    15. ↑Internal citations and quotations have been omitted.
    16. ↑Internal citations and quotations have been omitted.
    Seal of SCOTUS.png
    v • e
    Justices of theSupreme Court of the United States
    Active justices

    Chief justice:Roberts
    Associate justices:Alito •Barrett •Gorsuch •Jackson •Kagan •Kavanaugh •Sotomayor •Thomas

    Senior justices

    Breyer •Kennedy •Souter

    Former chief justices

    Burger •Chase •Ellsworth •Fuller •Hughes •Jay •Marshall •Rehnquist •Rutledge •Stone •Taft •Taney •Vinson •Waite •Warren •

    White
    Former associate justices

    O'Connor •Baldwin •Barbour •Black •Blackmun •Blair •Blatchford •Bradley •Brandeis •Brennan •Brewer •Brown •Burton •Butler •Byrnes •Campbell •Cardozo •Catron •Chase •Clark •Clarke •Clifford •Curtis •Cushing •Daniel •Davis •Day •Douglas •Duvall •Field •Fortas •Frankfurter •Ginsburg •Goldberg •Gray •Grier •Harlan I •Harlan II •Holmes •Hunt •Iredell •H. Jackson •R. Jackson •T. Johnson •W. Johnson, Jr. •J. Lamar •L. Lamar •Livingston •Lurton •Marshall •Matthews •McKenna •McKinley •McLean •McReynolds •Miller •Minton •Moody •Moore •Murphy •Nelson •Paterson •Peckham •Pitney •Powell •Reed •Roberts •W. Rutledge •Sanford •Scalia •Shiras •Stevens •Stewart •Story •Strong •Sutherland •Swayne •Thompson •Todd •Trimble •Van Devanter •Washington •Wayne •B. White •Whittaker •Wilson •Woodbury •Woods

    v • e
    The Administrative State
    MainThe Administrative State Project Badge.png
    Pillars
    Reporting
    Laws
    Administrative Procedure Act •Antiquities Act •Civil Service Reform Act •Clayton Antitrust Act •Communications Act of 1934 •Congressional Review Act •Electronic Freedom of Information Act •Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938 •Federal Housekeeping Statute •Federal Reserve Act •Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914 •Freedom of Information Act •Government in the Sunshine Act •Independent Offices Appropriations Act of 1952 •Information Quality Act •Interstate Commerce Act •National Labor Relations Act •Paperwork Reduction Act •Pendleton Act •Privacy Act of 1974 •Regulatory Flexibility Act •REINS Act •REINS Act (Wisconsin) •Securities Act of 1933 •Securities Exchange Act of 1934 •Sherman Antitrust Act •Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act •Truth in Regulating Act •Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    Cases
    Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner •A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States •Association of Data Processing Service Organizations v. Camp •Auer v. Robbins •Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council •Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe •Federal Trade Commission (FTC) v. Standard Oil Company of California •Field v. Clark •Food and Drug Administration v. Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corporation •Humphrey's Executor v. United States •Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) v. Chadha •J.W. Hampton Jr. & Company v. United States •Lucia v. SEC •Marshall v. Barlow's •Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency •Mistretta v. United States •National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) v. Sebelius •National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning Company •National Labor Relations Board v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. •Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan •Securities and Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corporation •Skidmore v. Swift & Co. •United States v. Lopez •United States v. Western Pacific Railroad Co. •Universal Camera Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board •Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council •Wayman v. Southard •Weyerhaeuser Company v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service •Whitman v. American Trucking Associations •Wickard v. Filburn •Wiener v. United States
    Terms
    Adjudication (administrative state) •Administrative judge •Administrative law •Administrative law judge •Administrative state •Arbitrary-or-capricious test •Auer deference •Barrier to entry •Bootleggers and Baptists •Chevron deference (doctrine) •Civil servant •Civil service •Code of Federal Regulations •Codify (administrative state) •Comment period •Compliance costs •Congressional Record •Coordination (administrative state) •Deference (administrative state) •Direct and indirect costs (administrative state) •Enabling statute •Ex parte communication (administrative state) •Executive agency •Federal law •Federal Register •Federalism •Final rule •Formal rulemaking •Formalism (law) •Functionalism (law) •Guidance (administrative state) •Hybrid rulemaking •Incorporation by reference •Independent federal agency •Informal rulemaking •Joint resolution of disapproval (administrative state) •Major rule •Negotiated rulemaking •Nondelegation doctrine •OIRA prompt letter •Organic statute •Pragmatism (law) •Precautionary principle •Promulgate •Proposed rule •Publication rulemaking •Regulatory budget •Regulatory capture •Regulatory dark matter •Regulatory impact analysis •Regulatory policy officer •Regulatory reform officer •Regulatory review •Rent seeking •Retrospective regulatory review •Risk assessment (administrative state) •Rulemaking •Separation of powers •Significant regulatory action •Skidmore deference •Statutory authority •Substantive law and procedural law •Sue and settle •Sunset provision •Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions •United States Code •United States Statutes at Large
    Bibliography
    Agencies
    Ballotpedia
    Editorial Content
    Josh Altic, Director of Content •Daniel Anderson, Associate Director of Elections & Data •Cory Eucalitto, Associate Director of Features •Ryan Byrne, Managing Editor of Ballot Measures •Mandy McConnell, Managing Editor of News •Doug Kronaizl, Managing Editor of Local Expansion •Abbey Smith, Managing Editor of Elections •Janie Valentine, Managing Editor of Law •Joel Williams, Managing Editor of Events •Joseph Greaney, Managing Editor of Policy •Andrew Bahl •Jaclyn Beran •Marielle Bricker •Joseph Brusgard •Emma Burlingame •Kelly Coyle •Jon Dunn •Victoria Edwards •Thomas Ellis •Nicole Fisher •Thomas Grobben •Brianna Hosea •Molly Kehoe •Tyler King •Glorie Martinez •Norm Leahy, Senior Editor •Nathan Maxwell •Jimmy McAllister •Brandon McCauley •Andrew McNair •Ellie Mikus •Mackenzie Murphy •Kaley Platek •Samantha Post •Adam Powell •Annelise Reinwald •Spencer Richardson •Victoria Rose •Briana Ryan •Myj Saintyl •Maddy Salucka •Emma Soukup •Alexis Thacker •Mina Vogel •Samuel Wonacott •Trenton Woodcox