Supreme Court conservatives spark chaos in government as federal agency power is curbed

In a dissenting opinion, liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor criticized the Supreme Court's conservative majority for what she called a "power grab" that limits the authority of federal agencies, particularly the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Sotomayor expressed concern over the court's trend of diminishing regulatory power, citing recent decisions that have curtailed the independence of agencies and restricted their enforcement capabilities. She highlighted the court's ruling that infringes on the SEC's ability to enforce securities laws, emphasizing the potential consequences for regulatory agencies across various sectors. The 6-3 decision by the conservative majority, led by Chief Justice John Roberts, concluded that the SEC's use of in-house judges violates the right to a trial by jury. This ruling is part of a broader pattern of challenges to federal agencies' authority, with the court's conservative bloc often siding with arguments seeking to limit the reach of the "administrative state." Sotomayor's dissent, delivered from the bench, underscored her concerns about the erosion of regulatory powers and the implications for upholding the rule of law in the face of increasing legal challenges from conservative and business interests. The case at the center of the ruling involved hedge fund manager George Jarkesy, who contested penalties imposed by the SEC for securities violations. Supported by prominent figures like Elon Musk and Mark Cuban, Jarkesy's challenge gained traction in the conservative-leaning Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals before reaching the Supreme Court. Sotomayor's dissent reflects broader anxieties about the court's approach to regulatory oversight and the potential consequences for the balance of powers within the government. Analysts view Sotomayor's dissent, particularly her reference to the Dobbs case, as a signal of liberal frustration and concern over the court's trajectory. The decision in the SEC case is seen as part of a broader effort to limit the authority of federal agencies and consolidate power within the executive branch, raising questions about the future of regulatory enforcement and the separation of powers in the U.S. legal system.