This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
The case concerns whether Securities and Exchange Commission administrative law judges (ALJs) are officers of the United States under the Appointments Clause.
Oral argument was held before the Supreme Court on the scheduled date, beginning at 10:03 a.m.
Background and question before the Court
The central question is whether SEC ALJs qualify as officers of the United States for purposes of the Appointments Clause.
What each side argues
Petitioner – Raymond J. Lucia
According to Mark Perry, petitioner argues that SEC ALJs are officers of the United States, relying on precedents such as *Freytag* and *Edmond*.
Respondent – Securities and Exchange Commission
Source-limited. The record does not yet support a complete account.
Amicus – Metlitsky
Amicus contends that an officer of the United States must have the power to bind the government, and that certain individuals lack such authority, so they are not officers.
What happened at oral argument
The case was presented for oral argument before the Supreme Court at 10:03 a.m.
What the Court decided
Why it matters
If the Court finds a constitutional violation, Section 706 of the APA requires that the agency’s actions be set aside, potentially wiping out prior agency decisions.
Terms to know
- officer of the United States
- An officer of the United States is someone with power to bind the government or private parties in the name of his own office; someone whose acts have no binding effect without the sanction of an officer is not an officer.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- 3510d0564d09b6f569d5-r1-6c3cd057013ddccf.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 26, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.