Federal agencies today often act as investigator, prosecutor, judge, and jury all at once—resolving disputes inside their own tribunals, rather than in federal courts with an independent judge, fixed rules of evidence, and a jury of one’s peers.
Critics argue that this practice—known as agency adjudication—undermines the Constitution’s separation of powers and weakens core individual protections. In SEC v. Jarkesy, the Supreme Court rightly pushed back, restoring key constitutional guarantees of the right to a jury trial—raising major questions about the future of administrative power in America.
Join Pacific Legal Foundation’s Mitchell Scacchi and Adi Dynar for a fast-paced discussion unpacking the constitutional stakes of Jarkesy and digging into PLF’s research report, Beyond Jarkesy: A Survey of Agency Adjudications Across the Administrative State. Learn why the practical effects may be narrower than some predictions and what the decision means for the future of agency adjudication.
