Sign Up

NCLA Site Search

Cases

Doe v. PCAOB

CASE SUMMARY

Plaintiff John Doe (a pseudonym used to protect his anonymity) seeks to stop PCAOB from continuing its unlawful and unconstitutional disciplinary proceedings. The Board’s massive investigative, prosecutorial, and pseudo-judicial powers are largely unchecked. After years of intrusive investigation, PCAOB can impose severe punitive sanctions against individual accountants and accounting firms in its regulatory ambit, up to permanently banning an individual from associating with any registered firm, revoking a firm’s registration, and imposing civil monetary penalties of up to $1.1 million for individuals and $22 million for firms—per violation. These potential penalty amounts are 20 times higher for firms than the maximum penalties the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission may impose.

Worse yet, PCAOB’s core executive and pseudo-judicial activity is performed and superintended by private citizens, none of whom is constitutionally appointed as an officer of the United States. PCAOB hearing officers are inferior constitutional officers who have not been lawfully appointed under the Appointments Clause of the Constitution and are unconstitutionally protected by multiple layers of protection from removal by the President.

NCLA argues that (1) PCAOB’s prosecution is being funded by money raised and spent in violation of the Appropriations, Taxing, and Spending Clauses of the Constitution and the separation of powers principles enshrined in those clauses; (2) PCAOB’s disciplinary proceedings deprive the Plaintiff of his Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial ; and (3) PCAOB’s disciplinary process is systemically biased, secretive, and unfair, in violation of the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause and the 2002 Sarbanes-Oxley Act.​

OUR TEAM

Casey Norman
Litigation Counsel
Russ Ryan
Senior Litigation Counsel

RELEVANT MATERIALS

NCLA FILINGS

Memorandum Opinion and Order

August 2, 2024 | Read More

Plaintiff's Reply Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Further Support of Motion to Litigate Pseudonymously

June 28, 2024 | Read More

Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief

January 19, 2023 | Read More

PRESS RELEASES

NCLA Challenges Modern Star Chamber Proceedings at Public Company Accounting Oversight Board

January 19, 2023 | Read More

IN THE MEDIA

SEC Must Scrutinize Auditing Watchdog Before Offering More Funds

December 12, 2023

PCAOB Sued Over ‘Secret Disciplinary Proceedings'

Accounting Today

May 12, 2023

‘Peekaboo Prosecution’ Turns 20

July 26, 2022

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.