Approximately a year ago, the US Supreme Court made a significant decision, which ushered in the opportunity for citizens to approach federal courts regarding constitutional objections to administrative tribunals by federal agencies – this occurred prior to the individuals or entities having to endure such tribunals. This step forward came through the landmark ruling in the case of Axon Enterprise v. Federal Trade Commission. However, despite this step in the legal landscape, an effective recourse from agency proceedings remains elusive.
Since then, the Pacific Legal Foundation has led numerous cases comprising Axon-style challenges to federal agency tribunals. While some successes have been chalked up, the challenges are formidable and victories are hard fought. Moreover, while a challenge is ongoing, many federal district courts enable the tribunal’s operations to continue unabated, culminating in a strenuous litigation process.
For plaintiffs, the door to the courthouse is certainly open, yet they continue to grapple with these complexities. This new ruling, while promising, has frequently catalyzed a parallel litigation pathway in federal courts rather than effectively reducing the reach of overbearing tribunals. This parallel litigation system imposes a strain on plaintiffs’ resources and achieving a federal court decision regarding the constitutionality of the agency process can span years.
Axon emerged from a scenario where Congress authorized numerous federal agencies to accuse individuals or firms of illegality and subsequently decide liability. Prior to Axon, litigants had to steer through the entirety of the administrative procedure prior to a hearing with a federal judge. It’s only at this juncture, that objections on the grounds of unconstitutional aspects of the process could be raised. The Axon ruling now provides an opportunity to freeze this hearing and have a court review its constitutionality before the administrative proceedings take place.
However, the road remains murky when agencies elect not to pause for a federal court decision on an Axon challenge. In such situations, plaintiffs seeking a pause on an administrative hearing must urgently petition a federal district on the grounds of an emergency. However, the benchmarks to secure this stay are elevated: Plaintiffs must convincingly demonstrate to the court a likelihood of their case’s success.
The Supreme Court case Axon Enter., Inc. v. FTC offered some respite in the tribulations of negotiation with administrative proceedings. However, it is evident that any palpable relief is elusive and often mired in complex courtroom procedures. Potential hope lies in the progression of Axon challenges, but it is likely that the Supreme Court will need to invest further jurisdiction in ameliorating the constitutionality of these administrative tribunals.