Supreme Court Slashes FTC's Power To Seek Monetary Awards (bloomberg.com) 49
The U.S. Supreme Court slashed the Federal Trade Commission's power to seek monetary awards in court, throwing out a legal tool the consumer-protection agency has used to collect billions of dollars over the past decade. From a report: The justices on Thursday unanimously said the FTC can't seek consumer redress when it invokes a provision that lets the agency go straight to federal court to try to stop an alleged fraud. The ruling is a triumph for business trade groups, which urged the court to curb the agency's powers. The FTC in 2012 dramatically ramped up its use of the decades-old provision to recoup money. The agency reported winning so-called restitution and disgorgement of almost $12 billion in 2016 alone, including $10 billion in a settlement with Volkswagen AG stemming from its diesel-emissions scandal. Writing for the court, Justice Stephen Breyer said the FTC retains other avenues to get restitution for consumers, though those tools involve a more complicated process. "If the commission believes that authority too cumbersome or otherwise inadequate, it is, of course, free to ask Congress to grant it further remedial authority," Breyer wrote.
Re: (Score:2)
This is the same "supreme" court that refused to touch election fraud because their decision could cause riots.
Seems that would be something for all the systems below them. Supreme court is when all else fails.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
This is the same "supreme" court that refused to touch election fraud
States hold elections under entirely their own jurisdiction. The federal government only receives the state's electoral votes.
I'm so sorry for you to find out this way, but your silent majority was silent because it wasn't a majority.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The ONLY part of elections that fall under the 14th amendment are the effect state laws have regarding the equal protection clause. Citation need if you're claiming anything else.
Re: (Score:1)
There are zero limits IN THE TEXT.
Any other claim denies the text.
Re: (Score:2)
and I quote
You quote? Funny how your quote didn't return any search results...
nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
There are zero limits IN THE TEXT.
There are bounds in the text - the 14th amendment enables federal judicial review of cases that relate specifically to equal protection of the law. That IS the limit. That doesn't give the federal government permission to review laws it doesn't like.
Also, what's i
Re: (Score:1)
Here's the text fool
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 2.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.
Section 3.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5.
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
So, yeah, equal rights, privileges and immunities on pain of loss of electors
Oh, and all the Repuliscum who helped the insurrection? Can not sit in any office.
Re: (Score:1)
Well that sucks... (Score:1)
They just yanked out the last of their teeth, cant wait to see what kind of bite they have once their new dentures arrive.
Re: (Score:3)
What a load of crap,
"Breyer added that the FTC still has the authority to obtain financial restitution on behalf of consumers under other sections of the FTC Act."
They were being lazy and citing the wrong part, using the wrong procedure. They didn't lose any powers. The FTC is simply uninterested in applying their powers correctly.
Unelected bureaucrats (Score:5, Informative)
The fundamental problem here is that agencies are acting as prosecutor, judge, and jury. All in one branch of the government and without judicial oversight and no rules of court procedure (such as evidentiary procedure).
Senator Mike Lee is trying to introduce legislation that would force regulatory agencies to submit their regulations for congressional approval - not in a blanket "bless this mess" kind of way, but for each new regulation a law including that exact wording has to be submitted and approved by congress and the president.
He (Senator Lee) points out that the sum total of laws approved by congress is, when printed, about an inch thick while the number of *changes* to regulations each year are, when printed, about 10 feet high. He keeps such a stack in his office as a reminder of the problem.
There's literally no oversight in any of these regulations. If you don't like the way something is handled, there's no one you can elect to change them, no representative you can visit for discussion (as you can for laws), no one to make donations to for change.
While it may appear *in this specific case* that the supreme court is doing the country a disservice, it's only the MSM negative framing that makes it seem so: Instead of focusing on whether the agency has the power to extract fines by fiat, the article focuses on how it will hurt the current really obvious cases where the FTC did the right thing. No mention at all of other examples that might show the FTC in a worse light.
A similar situation exists for FCC, FDA, FAA, and most of the other alphabet soup agencies.
The decision was unanimous by the court, so it had bipartisan support.
Re: (Score:1)
Hopefully, this is and indication there is a willingness on the part of at least Breyer from the left leaning side of the bench to re-evaluate Chevron.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Unelected bureaucrats (Score:5, Interesting)
Your opening assertion seems a bit overblown, given that the Supreme Court's ruling is specifically about a mechanism that allowed the FTC to seek a judgment from a federal court. The Seventh Amendment would allow the target company to elect a jury trial, at least if the FTC asked for more than $20. So this is a question of what the FTC can seek when it is acting as prosecutor, with a normal Article III judge, and a normal petit jury if the defendant wants one.
Re: (Score:3)
Of course the government absolutely loves this
Re: (Score:3)
" no agency should be able to pass laws or regulations"
Agencies are specifically and explicitly created to make regulations.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It is a funny habit we've gotten into. We forget that a "conservative" court gave us Roe v. Wade.
I remember how terrified the left was when George Bush nominated David Souter.
Re:Unelected bureaucrats (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
That isnt true at all. There is literally nothing prevent executive rule making from reacting to events.
All agency heads would need to do is find an administration friendly congress critter to propose legislation which could be nothing more then "The Bill enacts the EPAs April 2021 regulatory proposals as Law effective June 1, 2021."
My guess is the vast vast majority of these bills would easily clear Congress and the Senate. The consequences of not passing them would simply leave the old rules in place not
Re: (Score:2)
Nonsense - in your scenario congress is preventing the executive rule making from reacting to events, because none of the rules can take effect unless congress approves.
Re: (Score:2)
and if you want to see it take 'not a full-blown bill' get an amendment passed. there are legislative avenues. what can be enabled by fiat can be disabled by fiat.
you want to expand the role and powers of the executive. pass an amendment and formalize it. i don't think pseudo-laws in the form of executive agency regulations are good, i'll vote for people against them, and you do the same, and we'll see how my people are convinced one way or the other.
Re:Unelected bureaucrats (Score:5, Informative)
Not disagreeing with the bulk of your post, but this particular part of it isn't exactly true.
If Congress doesn't like a particular regulation or interpretation of a statute, it can pass an amendment clarifying it with more precision, such that the previous interpretation or regulation is no longer plausible. They can even make it a one-liner rebuke like "The term X in statute 10USC1234(A)(3)(g) does not include Y" (or "does include Y").
The fact that they don't, and the fact that Congress doesn't really legislate at all much anymore, is really just the incentives. Doing that kind of oversight -- spending time reviewing how the laws are interpreted into regulation and how those regulations are applied -- that doesn't win reelections. We shouldn't be surprised that they'd rather punt it to the FCC or FDA rather than spend time on something that doesn't really help them at all.
And no, I don't really have a fix. I'm just pointing out that for problems of statutory interpretation, Congress has the ultimate and unquestionable authority to just alter the underlying statute. They just don't use it very often at all.
Re:Unelected bureaucrats (Score:4, Informative)
I think you're missing how the Supreme Court came to be involved to rule on this. It's because the FTC is kept in check through the court system (a.k.a. oversight).
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
No, not really.
The executive branch is there pretty much solely to enforce the laws the legislative branch passes. It really is pretty limited to that, and should not be making up policies.
Having congress approve the regulations ensures those regulations
Re: (Score:2)
The executive branch is there pretty much solely to enforce the laws the legislative branch passes.
They write laws to create the agencies, and then give them bounds for what they are to accomplish. Turning that into policies is part of how you execute it - especially if you want to ensure you're not running afoul of things like the equal protection clause where you need to be consistent. This allows subject matter experts to lead the policy process. The only bad is when there's a revolving door to big industry as the source for subject matter experts.
Re:Unelected bureaucrats (Score:5, Informative)
There's literally no oversight in any of these regulations
This is complete bullshit. Regulators have strict rules regarding the processes for passing regulations, as well as some limitations on the scope of their regulations, and the courts do not shy from overturning regulations that violate them. Every regulatory agency has oversight committee in Congress. Congress has authority to overturn any specific regulations passed within 60 days, and authority to change the laws that grant regulators authority at any time. And lastly, agencies are subject to regular audits from the executive branch (GFO, GAO, etc).
I do agree that the power of the executive branch has gradually grown stronger than it should have, and that the powers granted to some agencies is far too vague and broad, but saying there is no oversight at all is laughable.
Re:Unelected bureaucrats (Score:5, Interesting)
Forcing administrative agencies to get their regulations approved by Congress is a poison pill (as Mike Lee well knows). Senators are not generally subject-matter experts and at least one Senator could be be relied upon to filibuster the regulations he doesn't understand on behalf of a constituent whose money he (or she) needs. If Congress doesn't like what an agency is doing, then they can change the law--that is the oversight.
In this case, it looks like Congress should change the law, because the FTC is underpowered.
Section 13(b) of the Federal Trade Commission Act authorizes the Commission to obtain, “in proper cases,” a “permanent injunction” in federal court against “any per-son, partnership, or corporation” that it believes “is violating, or is about to violate, any provision of law” that the Commission enforces. 87 Stat. 592, 15 U. S. C. 53(b). The question presented is whether this statutory language authorizes the Commission to seek, and a court to award, equitable monetary relief such as restitution or disgorgement.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/o... [supremecourt.gov]
The FTC is allowed to get a permanent injunction--meaning a Court order telling the company to do something or not to do something. So the FTC could probably order Volkswagon to install urea injectors in all of its old diesel engines, it can't make them pay money for the unanticipated depreciation of the vehicles or whatever. For the payday lenders in this case, everything is monetary so I don't see how an injunction could make the consumers whole (I say this not having read the rest of the fine opinion.)
Obviously each individual consumer could bring an action for fraud, but that would be inefficient. A class action would be more efficient, but may be foreclosed by the lending agreement (notwithstanding the allegations of fraud).
The most efficient solution would be for the FTC to identify a predatory, fraudulent actor and allow them to sue to disgorge the ill-gotten gains and make consumers whole. But the 9-0 ruling says that Congress' mandate to the FTC does not include this remedy. So Congress should change the law to allow the FTC to better protect consumers--but it probably can't because of of Senators like Mike Lee. This is an argument against giving Lee his proposed veto over every other regulation proposed by the EPA, FTC, SEC, and so on.
Re: (Score:3)
The fundamental problem here is that agencies are acting as prosecutor, judge, and jury.
That's not the fundamental problem, did you even read the ruling?
The agency was collecting monetary awards itself instead monetary awards going thru the judiciary as per usual. These cases were still being seen by judges, going through the legal process, and the companies were found guilty and ordered to pay by the judge. In fact, in some of the cases cited in the ruling, it was the judge who ordered the agency to collect the money and distribute it! When the ruling says that the agency thought congres
Re:Unelected bureaucrats (Score:4, Insightful)
"He (Senator Lee) points out that the sum total of laws approved by congress is, when printed, about an inch thick while the number of *changes* to regulations each year are, when printed, about 10 feet high. He keeps such a stack in his office as a reminder of the problem."
Which problem is that? That congress can't get anything done?
"Senator Mike Lee is trying to introduce legislation that would force regulatory agencies to submit their regulations for congressional approval - not in a blanket "bless this mess" kind of way, but for each new regulation a law including that exact wording has to be submitted and approved by congress and the president."
In August, the FAA issued a regulatory exception allowing flight attendants to relocate from their seats to maintain social distancing during COVID, set to expire Jan 31, 2021. Then it amended that exemption to extend it to allow flight attendants to perform the demonstration of the safety equipment and procedures to maintain social distancing. Then it issued an extension to that amendment to extend it to Mar 31, 2021.
They also issued an amendment allowing them the affix cargo to the seat rails if the seats are removed and the plane has no passengers. Then they amended it to allow for attaching cargo to seats if the cabin has no passengers. Then they extended that.
Senator Lee's argument that regulatory bodies shouldn't be established by congress and then left to run amok has merit of course, but his "solution" is just shit-for-brains idiotic that congress and the president would need to spend time on every bit of regulatory minutia, much of it time sensitive or responsive to real-world events.
Re: (Score:2)
"agencies are acting as prosecutor, judge, and jury"
-1, off topic
This ruling is specifically about the FTC seeking monetary awards *in court*.
Re: (Score:1)
But don't let reality stand in the way of your Republican talking points- no other Republicans do.
There is oversite - it is called congress (Score:1)
Congress has delegated the power to these agencies. They can override any rule by passing a law. Congressional approval should not be required for enacting every rule nor for enforcing every rule.
The Supreme Court's budget should be reduced by the amount the FTC recovered in the previous year.
Following the logic of the SC, the DMV then cannot fine you for late registration, replacement license, or anything punitive either.
Maybe the SC should also force all levels of courts to follow this same logic too --
FTC (Score:5, Interesting)
The FTC has gotten out of control in the last several years. A company I work for is in a market that was inundated with many false claims. Snake-oil type claims that were misleading and inaccurate. The FTC went overboard and basically fined everyone in this market for fraudulent advertising. Most of the other businesses paid the fines and changed their behavior. However, the company I work for was in the right, and had the studies and data to back up their statements, so they fought the FTC in court, and "won". I say "won" because the amount of money it cost to fight this was roughly the same as the fine the FTC had levied. For a small to medium sized business, this is just too large a burden to bear and nearly took them out of business.
The FTC doesn't care. They have the revenue and attorneys, and they simply keep a backlog of stuff to keep those attorneys occupied, you know, since they are being paid for they need to be put to use.
I, for one, and happy to see the FTC get a little bit of a slap on their knuckles.
Re: (Score:2)
Most of the other businesses paid the fines and changed their behavior.
So, in this case the FTC mostly accomplished something positive, but that's bad because one company got caught in the crossfire.
I wonder how many companies regularly go out of business due to the market being inundated with false claims.
Of the people, for the people, despite the people (Score:3, Insightful)
Laws are being moved against the people, despite their voting will. This is a clear case of “When Conservatives realize they can’t win democratically, they won’t give up conservatism, they’ll dismantle democracy.” As can also been seen in anti-voter laws advancing in every GOP held State.
Re: (Score:2)