У нас вы можете посмотреть бесплатно Lucia v. Securities and Exchange Commission Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained или скачать в максимальном доступном качестве, видео которое было загружено на ютуб. Для загрузки выберите вариант из формы ниже:
Если кнопки скачивания не
загрузились
НАЖМИТЕ ЗДЕСЬ или обновите страницу
Если возникают проблемы со скачиванием видео, пожалуйста напишите в поддержку по адресу внизу
страницы.
Спасибо за использование сервиса ClipSaver.ru
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o... Lucia v. Securities and Exchange Commission | 138 S. Ct. 2044 (2018) The Constitution’s Appointments Clause dictates the method for appointing officers of the United States. But who counts as an officer of the United States? In Lucia versus Securities and Exchange Commission, the Supreme Court considered the question. The Securities and Exchange Commission instituted administrative proceedings against Raymond Lucia, assigning an administrative law judge, or A L J, to handle the case. The Commission had five such judges, all appointed by its staff. This position was created by statute and was a career appointment. The Commission’s A L Js presided over administrative proceedings like a federal judge over a bench trial. For example, they heard witnesses, ruled on motions and evidence, and enforced discovery orders. When a hearing concluded, the A L J issued an initial decision, including findings of fact and conclusions of law, and issuing sanctions if appropriate. The Commission could review this initial decision on appeal or its own initiative. If the Commission decided against review, it issued an order that the initial decision was final and was deemed the Commission’s action. After Lucia’s hearing, the A L J ruled that Lucia’d violated federal securities laws and imposed sanctions. Lucia appealed to the Commission, arguing that the A L Js were officers of the United States and therefore subject to the Appointments Clause. Lucia maintained that their appointment by Commission staff, instead of the Commission itself, was unconstitutional. The Commission rejected Lucia’s appeal, concluding that its A L Js were simply employees. The D C Circuit affirmed. The United States Supreme Court granted cert. Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/lucia-v... The Quimbee App features over 16,300 case briefs keyed to 223 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o... Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/lucia-v... Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here: Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► https://www.youtube.com/subscription_... Quimbee Case Brief App ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o... Facebook ► / quimbeedotcom Twitter ► / quimbeedotcom #casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries