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
According to Michelle Cochran, the case SEC v. Cochran concerns whether the SEC Act removes district courts’ historic jurisdiction over structural constitutional claims involving an agency decision‑maker insulated from presidential removal.
Background and question before the Court
According to Michelle Cochran, the central question is whether the SEC Act strips district courts of jurisdiction that they have historically possessed to adjudicate and enjoin structural constitutional violations, here in the form of an agency decision‑maker that is unconstitutionally insulated from removal by the President.
What each side argues
SEC (Petitioner)
According to Mr. Garre, structural constitutional claims are different in terms of how they inflict injury, which is separate and unique.
According to Mr. Garre, the APA non‑jurisdictional arguments are waived in this case.
Michelle Cochran (Respondent)
According to Michelle Cochran, the question is whether the SEC Act strips district courts of jurisdiction that they have historically possessed to adjudicate and enjoin structural constitutional violations, here, in the form of an agency decision‑maker that is unconstitutionally insulated from removal by the President.
What happened at oral argument
Justice Kagan asked to return to the Free Enterprise Fund case during questioning.
Justice Sotomayor asked whether there is something special about structural constitutional claims.
According to Justice Alito, justice Alito questioned the relevance of collateral‑order‑doctrine cases to the present situation.
The Court noted that statutory language (Section 1331) gives district courts jurisdiction over the matter.
Justice Gorsuch asked whether the APA argument is waivable.
Justice Kavanaugh asked about the relevance of provision 703, which governs the form of judicial review.
- [1] 03b2a300f57ade458ede-r1-a671525d0a48bf13.pdf, p. 24
- [2] 03b2a300f57ade458ede-r1-a671525d0a48bf13.pdf, p. 28
- [3] 03b2a300f57ade458ede-r1-a671525d0a48bf13.pdf, p. 54
- [4] 03b2a300f57ade458ede-r1-a671525d0a48bf13.pdf, p. 55
- [5] 03b2a300f57ade458ede-r1-a671525d0a48bf13.pdf, p. 64
- [6] 03b2a300f57ade458ede-r1-a671525d0a48bf13.pdf, p. 69
What the Court decided
Why it matters
According to Michelle Cochran, the case concerns whether the SEC Act strips district courts of jurisdiction over structural constitutional violations.
According to Mr. Garre, the APA non‑jurisdictional arguments are waived in this case.
The Court noted that Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over the matter.
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- 03b2a300f57ade458ede-r1-a671525d0a48bf13.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 29, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.