NCLA Site Search

Cases

Romeril v. SEC

Back to Case Finder

CASE: Romeril v. SEC

STATUS: Closed

NCLA ROLE: Counsel

COURTS HEARD IN: SCOTUS, S.D. NY, 5th Cir.

ORIGINAL COURT: U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York

DECIDING COURT: U.S. Supreme Court

OPENED: May 6, 2019

AGENCIES: Securities and Exchange Commission

FOCUS AREAS:

Due Process Violations

The due process of law guarantees a right to be held to account only through the processes of an impartial court—something administrative tribunals violate every day.

Administrative Speech Controls

The Administrative State tries to squelch speech, especially through licensing, speech bans, and speech mandates. Licensing requires one to get the government’s permission prior to speaking. Nothing was more clearly forbidden by the First Amendment than prior restraints on speech, but such controls are now commonplace.

CASE SUMMARY

Did we achieve our litigation objective? No, Barry Romeril was forced to abide by the SEC’s oppressive “gag rule” that prevents him from discussing his settlement or even proclaiming his innocence.

Court Outcome: The U.S. Supreme Court chose not to review the Second Circuit’s decision.

Larger Impact: This is one of many cases NCLA has brought to challenge the oppressive “gag” policy by which the SEC forces victims of its administrative enforcement actions to give up their First Amendment rights as a condition of settling their case. NCLA will keep pushing the SEC to abandon the gag rule.

Summary: When Barry D. Romeril settled with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in June of 2003 he didn’t know he would live to regret it 16 years later. That is because in order to settle his case, the SEC required that he agree to be bound by a Gag Order- a little known tool of the SEC meant to silence people for life regarding cases brought against them. NCLA moved to remove the gag order from his consent agreement, declaring it an unconstitutional prior restraint and content-based restriction on speech, abridging freedom of the press and Americans’ right to petition. In October of 2018, NCLA pioneered the legal challenges to this rule by petitioning the SEC to amend its gag rule, setting forth in detail the numerous constitutional and legal infirmities of this unconstitutional and disturbing practice.

OUR CLIENT

Barry Romeril, Plaintiff

OUR TEAM

Mark Chenoweth
President and Chief Legal Officer
Kara Rollins
Litigation Counsel
Margaret A. Little
Senior Litigation Counsel

RELEVANT MATERIALS

NCLA FILINGS

Petitioners Reply Brief

May 27, 2022 | Read More

Brief for Amicus Curiae Due Process Institute in Support of Petitioner

April 22, 2022 | Read More

Brief of Amicus Curiae Thomas More Society in Support of Petitioner

April 22, 2022 | Read More

Brief of Constitutional Law & First Amendment Scholars as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioner

April 22, 2022 | Read More

Brief of Amicus Curiae Pelican Institute for Public Policy In Support of Petition for a Writ of Certiorari

April 22, 2022 | Read More

SEE 22 FILINGS
PRESS RELEASES

Prominent 1st Amendment Scholars, Investors and Think Tanks Support NCLA’s SCOTUS Cert Petition

April 25, 2022 | Read More

NCLA Petitions Supreme Court to End Decades-Long Suppression of Free Speech by SEC Gag Order

March 21, 2022

NCLA Seeks En Banc Review of First Amendment SEC Gag Rule Case in Second Circuit

November 15, 2021

Second Circuit Decision in SEC Gag Rule Case Fails to Address Unconstitutionality of Lifetime Gags

September 27, 2021

NCLA Launches Video of Former Chief Financial Officer of Xerox Silenced for Life by SEC’s Gag Rule

October 1, 2020 | Read More

SEE 11 PRESS RELEASES
IN THE MEDIA

Can the S.E.C. Require ‘Gag Orders’ When It Settles Cases?

The New York Times

February 7, 2023

Court upholds SEC gag rule for executives who settle

CFO Dive

February 7, 2023

2nd Circ. Denies Ex-Xerox Execs Bid To Toss SEC Gag Order

Law360

February 7, 2023

2nd Circuit rejects ex-Xerox execs challenge to gag order

Reuters

February 7, 2023

2nd Circuit Upholds SECs Use of Lifetime Gag Orders in Ex-Xerox Execs Appeal

Law.com

February 7, 2023

SEE 12 MEDIA MENTIONS

CASE HIGHLIGHTS

RELATED CASES
  • Adir International v. Starr Indemnity and Liability Company

    Due Process Violations

    The due process of law guarantees a right to be held to account only through the processes of an impartial court—something administrative tribunals violate every day.

    Case Closed -

    Agencies: California

    View Case
  • American Home Furnishings Alliance, et al. v. U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission

    Due Process Violations

    The due process of law guarantees a right to be held to account only through the processes of an impartial court—something administrative tribunals violate every day.

    Scope of Authority / Nondelegation

    The structure of the Constitution allows only Congress to legislate, only the Executive to enforce laws, and only the Judiciary to decide cases. But the Administrative State evades the Constitution’s avenues of governance when executive agencies issue regulations without statutory authorization from Congress.

    Case Closed - June 30, 2023

    Agencies: Consumer Product Safety Commission

    View Case
  • American Honda Motor Co., Inc. v. Walther, Dir., and Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration

    Judicial Deference

    Deference doctrines require judges to defer to an administrative agency’s fact finding, or its interpretation of statutes and regulations. Thus, judges surrender their independent judgment and, where the government is a party, must exhibit systematic bias in the government’s favor, which denies due process of law to the other litigant.

    Due Process Violations

    The due process of law guarantees a right to be held to account only through the processes of an impartial court—something administrative tribunals violate every day.

    Case Closed -

    Agencies: Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration

    View Case
  • American Hospital Association, et al. v. Xavier Becerra, et al.

    Judicial Deference

    Deference doctrines require judges to defer to an administrative agency’s fact finding, or its interpretation of statutes and regulations. Thus, judges surrender their independent judgment and, where the government is a party, must exhibit systematic bias in the government’s favor, which denies due process of law to the other litigant.

    Due Process Violations

    The due process of law guarantees a right to be held to account only through the processes of an impartial court—something administrative tribunals violate every day.

    Scope of Authority / Nondelegation

    The structure of the Constitution allows only Congress to legislate, only the Executive to enforce laws, and only the Judiciary to decide cases. But the Administrative State evades the Constitution’s avenues of governance when executive agencies issue regulations without statutory authorization from Congress.

    Case Closed - June 15, 2022

    Agencies: Department of Health and Human Services

    View Case
  • American Securities Association and Citadel Securities LLC v. United States Securities and Exchange Commission

    Due Process Violations

    The due process of law guarantees a right to be held to account only through the processes of an impartial court—something administrative tribunals violate every day.

    Scope of Authority / Nondelegation

    The structure of the Constitution allows only Congress to legislate, only the Executive to enforce laws, and only the Judiciary to decide cases. But the Administrative State evades the Constitution’s avenues of governance when executive agencies issue regulations without statutory authorization from Congress.

    Administrative Speech Controls

    The Administrative State tries to squelch speech, especially through licensing, speech bans, and speech mandates. Licensing requires one to get the government’s permission prior to speaking. Nothing was more clearly forbidden by the First Amendment than prior restraints on speech, but such controls are now commonplace.

    Unreasonable Searches

    The Fourth Amendment forbids warrantless searches and seizures of information, yet the Administrative State violates this right to privacy through administrative subpoenas and warrants, automated information collection devices, civil investigative demands, and “voluntary” requests for information.

    Conditions on Spending

    Administrative agencies use unconstitutional conditions on spending to regulate the conduct of grantees. Rather than rule through law, the government simply purchases submission.

    Case Active - February 15, 2024

    Agencies: Securities and Exchange Commission

    View Case
  • AMG Capital Management, LLC v. FTC and FTC v. Credit Bureau Center, LLC

    Due Process Violations

    The due process of law guarantees a right to be held to account only through the processes of an impartial court—something administrative tribunals violate every day.

    Scope of Authority / Nondelegation

    The structure of the Constitution allows only Congress to legislate, only the Executive to enforce laws, and only the Judiciary to decide cases. But the Administrative State evades the Constitution’s avenues of governance when executive agencies issue regulations without statutory authorization from Congress.

    Case Closed -

    Agencies: Federal Trade Commission

    View Case

SHARE THIS CASE

Enter your email address above to be notified whenever we post a new document to this case.