Editing Administrative law judge (section)

== Case law ==
The constitutionality of the use of ALJs by executive branch administrative agencies has become the subject of frequent challenges in judicial branch courts during the early 21st century. In ''[[Lucia v. SEC]]'' (2018), the [[United States Supreme Court|U.S. Supreme Court]] ruled that ALJs are officers of the United States and thus subject to the [[Appointments Clause]] of the Constitution—requiring their appointment to be made by the President or an otherwise delegated officer—but they do not require Senate confirmation as they are merely considered "inferior" officers.<ref>{{cite web | url = https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/21/us/politics/sec-judges-supreme-court.html | title = S.E.C. Judges Were Appointed Unlawfully, Justices Rule |first = Adam | last=  Liptak | date  =June 21, 2018 | accessdate = June 23, 2018 | work = [[The New York Times]] }}</ref> In 2023, the case of ''[[SEC v. Jarkesy]]'' raised the issues of whether the use of ALJ factfinding as a replacement for a [[jury trial]] violates the [[Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution|Seventh Amendment]] and the [[nondelegation doctrine]].<ref>{{cite web | url = https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/05/18/business/economy-news-stocks-inflation#sec-jury-trial-judge | title =  A federal appeals court says the S.E.C.'s use of an in-house judge violates defendants' rights. | first = Matthew | last = Goldstein | date = May 18, 2022 | accessdate = May 19, 2022 | work = [[The New York Times]] }}</ref>  In June 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled by a 6-3 majority that the SEC's use of ALJs in administrative proceedings for regulatory violations analogous to [[securities fraud]] violates the Seventh Amendment because there was a right to a jury trial in fraud actions at common law, then refused to decide any other issues.<ref name="20240627NYTSavageLiptak">{{cite news |author1=Charlie Savage and Adam Liptak |title=Again Curbing Regulatory Agencies, Supreme Court Rejects S.E.C.’s Tribunals |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/27/us/politics/supreme-court-sec-tribunal.html |access-date=July 12, 2024 |work=The New York Times |publisher=The New York Times |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240709010354/https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/27/us/politics/supreme-court-sec-tribunal.html |archive-date=July 9, 2024|date=June 27, 2024}}</ref>

While ''Lucia'' and ''Jarkesy'' were specifically focused on the SEC, there are other pending cases in lower-level courts (such as those brought by [[SpaceX]] and [[Trader Joe's]]) which brought similar challenges to the [[National Labor Relations Board]]'s use of ALJs.<ref>{{cite web | url = https://fortune.com/2024/01/27/elon-musk-spacex-right-nlrb-unconstitutional-says-trader-joes/ | title = Elon Musk and SpaceX are right about the National Labor Relations Board being unconstitutional, argues Trader Joe’s | first = Josh | last = Eidelson | date = January 27, 2024 | accessdate = January 27, 2024 | work = [[Fortune (magazine)|Fortune]] }}</ref> At least one court has ruled that the challenges would "neuter" the [[National Labor Relations Act]] and are unlikely to succeed, and that the [[National Labor Relations Board]]'s use of ALJs is likely constitutional.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Wiessner |first1=Daniel |title=US judge rejects medical center's bid to 'neuter' NLRB |url=https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-judge-rejects-medical-centers-bid-neuter-nlrb-2024-09-16/ |access-date=16 September 2024 |agency=Reuters |date=16 September 2024}}</ref>