Jarkesy v. Securities & Exchange Commission

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that claims arising “from actions the Commission took in the course of [its administrative] scheme” were not “wholly collateral”
• recognizing that granting the court of appeals’ “exclusive jurisdiction” to set aside the agency order shows an intent to preclude district court jurisdiction
• recognizing that the “particular challenges” raised by the plaintiff become relevant after the court has found that “Congress meant to channel most challenges to the Commission’s administrative proceedings through the statutory review scheme”
• observing that the petitioner's \[discovery] requests might well have met the same result had he attempted them in the district court\
• explaining that the administrative process does not \categorically preclude [petitioner] from accessing the evidence he believes he needs\
• holding legal claims “inextricably intertwined” with factual claims presented to an agency are not collateral

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).