US Supreme Court turns away challenge by Alpine Securities to FINRA
By John Kruzel
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The U.S. Supreme Court declined on Monday to hear a challenge by broker-dealer Alpine Securities claiming that the enforcement power given by the federal government to the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Wall Street's self-regulator, is unconstitutional.
The justices turned away Salt Lake City-based Alpine's appeal of a lower court's ruling that allowed FINRA to move forward with an enforcement action against the company for allegedly stealing more than $54.5 million from customers.
FINRA, a non-governmental self-regulatory organization, is responsible under federal law for supervising broker-dealers in the United States with the aim of protecting investors and the integrity of securities markets. FINRA has considered the expulsion of Alpine, accusing it of stealing from customers by charging excessive fees and misusing their investments.
Alpine responded with a lawsuit to block the FINRA expulsion proceeding, arguing that the organization's structure violates the U.S. Constitution. Specifically at issue is a constitutional principle called the private nondelegation doctrine, which involves limits on the ability of federal agencies set up by Congress to hand off authority to private entities like FINRA.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit handed Alpine a partial victory in 2022, ruling that FINRA cannot expel member firms in expedited proceedings without obtaining review by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, a federal regulatory agency.
The D.C. Circuit decided that a lack of SEC review likely violated the private nondelegation doctrine. But that court also let FINRA continue its enforcement proceeding against Alpine, saying it would not cause the kind of irreparable harm Alpine could face if later expelled, such as going out of business. This prompted Alpine's appeal to the Supreme Court.
FINRA opposed Alpine's appeal, as did President Donald Trump's administration.
Chief Justice John Roberts in March denied Alpine's emergency request to stop the FINRA proceeding.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
12 minutes ago
- Yahoo
China's Xi meets with Lukashenko of 'all-weather' partner Belarus
BEIJING (Reuters) -Chinese President Xi Jinping on Wednesday met with President Alexander Lukashenko of Belarus in Beijing, the official Xinhua news agency reported, as the two "all-weather" partners looked to further deepen strategic ties and cooperation. Lukashenko's visit to Beijing was his first to the Chinese capital since he was declared a winner of a presidential election in January, extending his 31-year rule of the former Soviet republic.
Yahoo
13 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Electric airplane makes first landing at NYC's JFK Airport
STORY: :: June 3, 2025 :: New York :: This is the first time a passenger-carrying electric airplane has landed at a New York airport :: Kyle Clark, Founder and CEO, Beta Technologies "So this is a 100% electric airplane that just flew from East Hampton to JFK with passengers on it, which was a first for the New York Port Authority, for the New York area, and we covered 70 odd nautical miles in 35 minutes." :: Beta Technologies' flight showcases the quiet, low-cost potential of electric air travel "The most transformative thing is that you drastically reduce the cost of flying. Charging this thing up and flying out here cost us about $8 in fuel, right? Of course, you have to pay for the pilot, gotta pay for airplane, but fundamentally, it's way less expensive. It's quieter, so the communities are happier. It's a simpler aircraft, so you're quiet, you're accessible, and people love flying it. If you asked the passengers how they liked it, we could talk to each other the whole time. There's no propeller in front of you, there's no jet engine. It's just a quiet whooshing across the plane." The flight to New York's John F. Kennedy International Airport flew 45 minutes with a pilot and four people, they said in a statement. Transportation companies, including airlines, are looking to develop services using electric battery-powered aircraft that can take off and land vertically to ferry travelers for short city trips, allowing them to beat traffic. In October, the Federal Aviation Administration finalized comprehensive training and pilot certification rules for flying air taxis, calling it "the final piece in the puzzle for safely introducing these aircraft in the near term." In the same month, Beta raised $318 million in equity capital to fund production, certification, and commercialization of electric aircraft, bringing its total raised value to more than $1 billion. The Vermont-based company was founded in 2017. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump's Haste Begets Lawlessness
Last week, a federal court ruled that President Donald Trump had exceeded his statutory authority by imposing a raft of tariffs based on the "national emergency" supposedly caused by the longstanding U.S. trade deficit. Those tariffs are part of an alarming pattern: In his rush to enact his agenda, Trump frequently treats legal constraints as inconveniences that can be overridden by executive fiat. The U.S. Court of International Trade rejected Trump's reliance on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to justify sweeping import taxes he announced in February and April. The three-judge panel said that 48-year-old law, which does not even mention tariffs and had never been used this way before, does not authorize the president to "impose unlimited tariffs on goods from nearly every country in the world." That decision did not affect tariffs that Trump has imposed or proposed under different statutes, such as his taxes on cars, steel, and aluminum. But by invoking the IEEPA, Trump hoped to avoid the specific rationales and sometimes lengthy procedures those laws mandate. Trump's immigration crackdown features similar legal shortcuts. After he asserted the power to summarily deport alleged members of a Venezuelan gang as "alien enemies," for example, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that they had a due process right to contest that designation. That decision did not address Trump's dubious interpretation of the 227-year-old Alien Enemies Act. But several federal judges, including a Trump appointee, subsequently concluded that it made no sense to portray gang members as "natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects" of a "hostile nation or government" that had launched an "invasion or predatory incursion against the territory of the United States." As with tariffs, Trump had a more legally defensible option: deportation of unauthorized residents under the Immigration and Nationality Act. But in both cases, he chose the course he thought would avoid pesky procedural requirements. Something similar happened when Immigration and Customs Enforcement suddenly terminated thousands of records in the database of foreign students with visas authorizing them to attend American universities. Although that move was described as part of a "Student Criminal Alien Initiative," it affected many people without disqualifying criminal records—in some cases, without any criminal records at all. Those terminations "reflect an instinct that has become prevalent in our society to effectuate change: move fast and break things," U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White wrote when he issued a preliminary injunction against the initiative on May 22. "That instinct must be checked when it conflicts with established principles of law." The same instinct is apparent in Trump's conflict with Harvard University. The administration froze more than $2 billion in federal research grants to Harvard, ostensibly because the university, by tolerating antisemitism on campus, had failed to meet its "responsibility to uphold civil rights laws." That decision ignored the legal process for rescinding federal funding based on such alleged violations. The process includes "a lot of steps, but they're important," the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression notes. "They protect students by making sure colleges live up to their obligations. And they protect colleges by making sure they have an opportunity to contest the allegations as well as a chance to make things right." Trump's disregard for the law is coupled with angry dismay at judicial review. As he sees it, any judge who dares to impede his will is a "Radical Left Lunatic," a "troublemaker" and "agitator" who "should be IMPEACHED!!!" After the tariff ruling, a White House spokesman argued that the court charged with interpreting and applying trade laws had no business doing that. "It is not for unelected judges to decide how to properly address a national emergency," he insisted. Contrary to that take, "it is emphatically the province and duty" of the judicial branch to "say what the law is," as Chief Justice John Marshall put it 222 years ago. Especially when the executive branch is headed by someone who does not seem to care. © Copyright 2025 by Creators Syndicate Inc. The post Trump's Haste Begets Lawlessness appeared first on
