Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Saad v. Securities & Exchange Commission

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

Decided October 13, 2017No. 15-1430Published

1ConcurrenceKavanaugh, Circuit Judge

I add this brief concurrence to explain why I believe the Court is correct to remand this case to the SEC.

Our precedents say that the SEC may approve expulsion or suspension of a securities broker as a remedy, but not as a penalty. Our cases in turn have upheld various expulsions or suspensions as remedial. See, e.g., PAZ Securities, Inc. v. SEC, 566 F.3d 1172, 1175-76 (D.C. Cir. 2009). Our use of the term “remedial” to describe expulsions or suspensions finds its roots in a single, unexplained sentence in a 77-year-old Second Circuit case. See Wright v. SEC, 112 F.2d 89, 94 (2d Cir. 1940).…

2Cases cited22 opinions

  1. Smith v. DoeSupreme Court of the United States · 2003
  2. Hudson v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1997
  3. Securities & Exchange Commission v. Capital Gains Research Bureau, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1963
  4. De Veau v. BraistedSupreme Court of the United States · 1960
  5. Lashawn A. v. Marion S. Barry, Jr.Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1996

17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API