JUST IN: Supreme Court Rules To Curtail Bureaucracy’s Power Over Americans

The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday issued a landmark ruling that will curtail the powers of the executive branch via the Securities and Exchange Commission.

In a 6-3 decision that Real America’s Voice correspondent Mike Davis called a “win for the Constitution,” the court ruled that the SEC must rein in activities by its administrative law staff “who pretend like they’re judges,” he added.

VOTE NOW: Should Biden Be Drug Tested Before Thursday’s Debate?

In practice, the SEC officials act as judge, jury, and executioner while overseeing tribunals meant to enforce federal regulations against corporations. The case was brought by opponents who argued that the system violated defendants’ constitutional rights to a fair and impartial trial. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., writing for the majority, concurred.

“A defendant facing a fraud suit has the right to be tried by a jury of his peers before a neutral adjudicator,” the chief justice wrote, according to the New York Times.

“They use these cases within the SEC to impose fines on people,” Davis said outside the courthouse on Thursday. “They do this without a jury under the 7th Amendment to the Constitution. They also do this when they’re not judges – they’re executive branch employees. They’re not even appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate.”

WATCH:

WIN FOR THE CONSTITUTION 6-3 Ruling That SEC Must Stop Executive Branch Employees From Acting As Judges @mrddmia pic.twitter.com/y5WaaO26jP

— Jayne Zirkle (@JayneZirkle) June 27, 2024

The decision is a win for the conservative legal movement which in recent years has gone after the administrative state for overreach on several fronts. The court last month disagreed with conservatives in a ruling allowing the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to maintain its run-around system of funding outside of congressional appropriation. Justices are still contemplating a decision on how and when judges should defer to administrative interpretations of ambiguous legal statutes.

Also on Thursday, the court reversed a ban on emergency abortions in Idaho, a decision that was briefly posted last Wednesday night before being removed from its website. Additional emissions regulations implemented by the Biden administration were paused in another decision, the Times added.

The mixed bag of decisions has continued all week. On Wednesday, justices sided with the Biden administration in a censorship case brought by conservatives who argued the president overstepped his authority by ordering social media companies to ban users and remove posts during the pandemic. Yet gun rights for those accused of domestic violence were struck down in another, a loss for the staunchest of Second Amendment supporters. In a split 8-1 decision, the high court ruled that convicted individuals under domestic violence restraining orders (DVRO) are not entitled to hold firearms after gun rights activists challenged a federal law implementing the restriction. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, stated, “[W]e conclude only this: An individual found by a court to pose a credible threat to the physical safety of another may be temporarily disarmed consistent with the Second Amendment.”

(STAY INFORMED! Download the FREE Trending Politics app before debate night)