New York Republican State Committee v. Securities & Exchange Commission
419 U.S. App. D.C. 92
| D.C. Cir. | 2015Background
- The New York Republican State Committee and Tennessee Republican Party challenged an SEC rule promulgated under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 regulating campaign contributions by investment advisers.
- The 2010 rule restricts certain political contributions by advisers with a two-year cooling-off period before providing services to a government client.
- The district court dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; plaintiffs sought direct review in the Court of Appeals.
- The central issue is whether challenges to SEC rules under the Investment Advisers Act fall under exclusive appellate jurisdiction or the Administrative Procedure Act’s district-court route.
- The Court of Appeals held exclusive jurisdiction lies in the courts of appeals and that challenges must be brought within 60 days of rule promulgation, making this four-year-old petition time-barred.
- The court affirmed the district court and dismissed the petition as time-barred.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of review provision for rules | §80b-13(a) only covers orders | §80b-13(a) covers rules too under Investment Company precedent | Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over rules; petition dismissed |
| Timeliness of petition | Equitable tolling due to lack of notice; late filing excusable | No tolling; deadlines strict | Petition time-barred; not excused |
| Constitutionality of the 60-day limit | Due process concerns; limit too short | Limit valid; precedents support direct-review framework | Limit constitutional; no saving construction warranted |
| Remedies for pre-enforcement challenges to rules | District court or APA relief should apply | Exclusive remedy under Investment Advisers Act applies | APA relief inadequate; Act provides adequate exclusive remedy |
| Pre-enforcement First Amendment claims under the Act | Suggest district court jurisdiction for constitutional claims | Review provision provides adequate relief; no district-court residuum | Exclusive review provision applies; no district-court jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Investment Company Institute v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 551 F.2d 1270 (D.C. Cir. 1977) (direct-review presumption extends to rules as well as orders; exclusive appellate jurisdiction)
- Florida Power & Light Co. v. Lorion, 470 U.S. 729 (S. Ct. 1985) (when ambiguity exists in direct-review scope, presumption favors appellate review)
- Nat’l Auto. Dealers Ass’n v. FTC, 670 F.3d 268 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (supports Investment Company presumption in direct-review provisions)
- National Mining Ass’n v. Dept. of Labor, 292 F.3d 849 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (distinguishes Black Lung Act from direct-review statute encompassing rules)
- American Petroleum Institute v. SEC, 714 F.3d 1329 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (indicia of intent to depart from Investment Company not present here)