About: Lucia v. Securities and Exchange Commission

An Entity of Type: unit of work, from Named Graph: http://dbpedia.org, within Data Space: dbpedia.org

Lucia v. Securities and Exchange Commission, 585 U.S. ___ (2018), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States on the status of administrative law judges of the Securities and Exchange Commission. The Court held that they are considered inferior officers of the United States and so are subject to the Appointments Clause and must be appointed through the President or other delegated officer of the United States, rather than hired. As "inferior" officers, their appointments are not subject to the Senate's advice and consent role.

Property	Value
dbo:abstract	Lucia v. Securities and Exchange Commission, 585 U.S. ___ (2018), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States on the status of administrative law judges of the Securities and Exchange Commission. The Court held that they are considered inferior officers of the United States and so are subject to the Appointments Clause and must be appointed through the President or other delegated officer of the United States, rather than hired. As "inferior" officers, their appointments are not subject to the Senate's advice and consent role. (en)
dbo:wikiPageExternalLink	https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/585/17-130/ https://www.leagle.com/decision/infco20160809141 https://www.leagle.com/decision/infco20170626137 https://www.oyez.org/cases/2017/17-130 https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/17-130_4f14.pdf
dbo:wikiPageID	57734818 (xsd:integer)
dbo:wikiPageLength	13921 (xsd:nonNegativeInteger)
dbo:wikiPageRevisionID	1059849450 (xsd:integer)
dbo:wikiPageWikiLink	dbr:Samuel_Alito dbr:En_banc dbr:Appointments_Clause dbc:Appointments_Clause_case_law dbr:John_Roberts dbr:United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_District_of_Columbia_Circuit dbc:United_States_Supreme_Court_cases dbc:United_States_Supreme_Court_cases_of_the_Roberts_Court dbr:Ruth_Bader_Ginsburg dbr:Clarence_Thomas dbr:Elena_Kagan dbc:U.S._Securities_and_Exchange_Commission_litigation dbr:Anthony_Kennedy dbr:Stephen_Breyer dbc:United_States_separation_of_powers_case_law dbr:Administrative_law dbr:D.C._Cir. dbr:Administrative_law_judge dbr:Investment_Advisers_Act_of_1940 dbc:2018_in_United_States_case_law dbc:United_States_administrative_case_law dbr:Advice_and_consent dbr:L._Ed._2d dbr:Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States dbr:Donald_Trump dbr:Sonia_Sotomayor dbr:Neil_Gorsuch dbr:Ray_Lucia dbr:Certiorari dbr:Officer_of_the_United_States dbr:United_States_courts_of_appeals dbr:Per_curiam dbr:Administrative_law_judges dbr:F.3d dbr:F._App'x dbr:Securities_and_Exchange_Commission
dbp:arguedate	0001-04-23 (xsd:gMonthDay)
dbp:argueyear	2018 (xsd:integer)
dbp:case	Lucia v. Securities and Exchange Commission, (en)
dbp:concurrence	Thomas (en)
dbp:concurrence/dissent	Breyer (en)
dbp:decidedate	0001-06-21 (xsd:gMonthDay)
dbp:decideyear	2018 (xsd:integer)
dbp:dissent	Sotomayor (en)
dbp:docket	17 (xsd:integer)
dbp:fullname	Raymond J. Lucia, et al. v. Security and Exchange Commission (en)
dbp:holding	Administrative law judges of the Securities and Exchange Commission are considered officers of the United States and so are subject to the Appointments Clause. (en)
dbp:joinconcurrence	Gorsuch (en)
dbp:joinconcurrence/dissent	Ginsburg, Sotomayor (en)
dbp:joindissent	Ginsburg (en)
dbp:joinmajority	Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch (en)
dbp:justia	https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/585/17-130/
dbp:lawsapplied	dbr:Appointments_Clause
dbp:litigants	Lucia v. Securities and Exchange Commission (en)
dbp:majority	Kagan (en)
dbp:otherSource	Supreme Court (en)
dbp:otherUrl	https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/17-130_4f14.pdf
dbp:oyez	https://www.oyez.org/cases/2017/17-130
dbp:parallelcitations	172800.0
dbp:prior	25920.0
dbp:subsequent	Raymond J. Lucia Cos. v. SEC, 736 F. App'x 2 (en)
dbp:uspage	___ (en)
dbp:usvol	585 (xsd:integer)
dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate	dbt:Caselaw_source dbt:Infobox_SCOTUS_case dbt:Reflist dbt:USD dbt:Ussc dbt:OR dbt:US_Appointments_Clause
dcterms:subject	dbc:Appointments_Clause_case_law dbc:United_States_Supreme_Court_cases dbc:United_States_Supreme_Court_cases_of_the_Roberts_Court dbc:U.S._Securities_and_Exchange_Commission_litigation dbc:United_States_separation_of_powers_case_law dbc:2018_in_United_States_case_law dbc:United_States_administrative_case_law
rdf:type	owl:Thing dbo:Case dbo:LegalCase dbo:UnitOfWork wikidata:Q2334719 dbo:SupremeCourtOfTheUnitedStatesCase
rdfs:comment	Lucia v. Securities and Exchange Commission, 585 U.S. ___ (2018), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States on the status of administrative law judges of the Securities and Exchange Commission. The Court held that they are considered inferior officers of the United States and so are subject to the Appointments Clause and must be appointed through the President or other delegated officer of the United States, rather than hired. As "inferior" officers, their appointments are not subject to the Senate's advice and consent role. (en)
rdfs:label	Lucia v. Securities and Exchange Commission (en)
owl:sameAs	wikidata:Lucia v. Securities and Exchange Commission https://global.dbpedia.org/id/6jW6W
prov:wasDerivedFrom	wikipedia-en:Lucia_v._Securities_and_Exchange_Commission?oldid=1059849450&ns=0
foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf	wikipedia-en:Lucia_v._Securities_and_Exchange_Commission
foaf:name	(en) Raymond J. Lucia, et al. v. Security and Exchange Commission (en)
is dbo:wikiPageRedirects of	dbr:Lucia_v._SEC dbr:Lucia_v_Securities_and_Exchange_Commission
is dbo:wikiPageWikiLink of	dbr:Lucia_v._SEC dbr:Jarkesy_v._SEC dbr:Lucia_v_Securities_and_Exchange_Commission
is foaf:primaryTopic of	wikipedia-en:Lucia_v._Securities_and_Exchange_Commission