XM does not provide services to residents of the United States of America.

Wall Street's top regulator faces worsening battle in wake of Supreme Court ruling



<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><head><title>ANALYSIS-Wall Street's top regulator faces worsening battle in wake of Supreme Court ruling</title></head><body>

By Chris Prentice and Pete Schroeder

WASHINGTON, June 28 (Reuters) -The Supreme Court's move to curb federal agency powers could curtail efforts by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to establish new rules to police Wall Street and invite more litigation, legal experts said in the wake of Friday's landmark ruling.

The court overturned a 1984 precedent that had given deference to government agencies in interpreting laws they administer. The decisionraises the specter of fresh grounds on which to challenge the markets watchdog in court as it rolls out new policies or seeks to regulate new corners of the markets.

The SEC is already fending off an increasing legal assault from public companies, major Wall Street firms and well-heeled cryptocurrency players.

The SCOTUS decision, made 6-3, is likely to tie the SEC's hands as it rolls out new rules, according to half a dozen legal experts.

The SEC did not respond to a request for comment. SEC Chair GaryGensler told Reuters this month that the agency pivots as required by courts' interpretation of the law.

The ruling is a "game-changer," said Richard Hong, a former SEC trial lawyer and partner with the Morrison Cohen law firm.

The SEC will likely have more reason to pause before acting when seeking to police new financial instruments, said Cary Coglianese, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania who specializes in regulation.

"It will make it more difficult for agencies to adapt their understandings of statutes in the face of new circumstances," Coglianese said.

The precedent, known as the Chevron deference after a ruling involving the U.S. oil company,had been cited by the SEC and other agencies in prior court cases to justify new regulatory efforts, as they deemed the activities within their purview. But now it would fall solely to a court to determine if the agency is acting within the law, which experts saidcould have a chilling effect.

Proponents of the approach argue that the Chevron deference allows federal regulatory bodies to adapt to changing times and circumstances. But the Chevron doctrine has come under growing criticism from conservatives, arguing it allows rule-writers to overstep their legal authorities.

While the SEC and other regulators have other tools on which to lean, Chevron has been a bedrock of agency rulemaking.

Between 2003 and 2013, Chevron was applied 66.7% of the time when litigating SEC rules in circuit courts and in those cases the agency won just over 81%, according to 2017 research published in the Michigan Law Review.

"Going forward, agency action will be under even greater scrutiny and there will likely be more opportunities for the regulated community to challenge agency rules and adjudications," said Varu Chilakamarri, a partner at K&L Gates.

Friday's ruling is the latest effort of the conservative "war on the administrative state", which aims to weaken federal agencies across the board. Gensler's ambitious agenda has made the agency, which oversees around 40,000 entities, a top target.

The SEC stayed this year's landmark climate disclosurerule due to legal challenges. A federal appeals court this month struck down its overhaul of private fund oversight on the grounds the agency exceeded its authorities.

“The challenge to the SEC’s climate rule was already poised to be a difficult fight for the agency," said Leah Malone, leader of Simpson Thacher’s ESG and sustainability practice. Friday's shift "raises even further questions about the survival of the climate rule, as well as other pending rule proposals that have been in the spotlight,” Malone said.

Friday's ruling is the second blow to the SEC's authority in as many days from the Supreme Court. On Thursday, the justices ruled the agency's reliance on in-house courts to handle enforcement cases was unconstitutional.

"If yesterday’s decision was causing tremors, causing some dishes to tumble out from the cupboards, today’s case is a Richter-7 earthquake," said Hong.



Reporting by Pete Schroeder and Chris Prentice
Additional reporting by Hannah Lang, Ross Kerber and Michelle Price; editing by Megan Davies and Rod Nickel

</body></html>

Disclaimer: The XM Group entities provide execution-only service and access to our Online Trading Facility, permitting a person to view and/or use the content available on or via the website, is not intended to change or expand on this, nor does it change or expand on this. Such access and use are always subject to: (i) Terms and Conditions; (ii) Risk Warnings; and (iii) Full Disclaimer. Such content is therefore provided as no more than general information. Particularly, please be aware that the contents of our Online Trading Facility are neither a solicitation, nor an offer to enter any transactions on the financial markets. Trading on any financial market involves a significant level of risk to your capital.

All material published on our Online Trading Facility is intended for educational/informational purposes only, and does not contain – nor should it be considered as containing – financial, investment tax or trading advice and recommendations; or a record of our trading prices; or an offer of, or solicitation for, a transaction in any financial instruments; or unsolicited financial promotions to you.

Any third-party content, as well as content prepared by XM, such as: opinions, news, research, analyses, prices and other information or links to third-party sites contained on this website are provided on an “as-is” basis, as general market commentary, and do not constitute investment advice. To the extent that any content is construed as investment research, you must note and accept that the content was not intended to and has not been prepared in accordance with legal requirements designed to promote the independence of investment research and as such, it would be considered as marketing communication under the relevant laws and regulations. Please ensure that you have read and understood our Notification on Non-Independent Investment. Research and Risk Warning concerning the foregoing information, which can be accessed here.

Risk Warning: Your capital is at risk. Leveraged products may not be suitable for everyone. Please consider our Risk Disclosure.