This is the Cato Daily Podcast for Monday, July 8th, 2024.

I'm Caleb Brown.

Federal agencies have engaged for many years in what's termed administrative adjudication, that is, the agency acting

like a court.

You can imagine the advantage that agencies receive in acting as both prosecutor and judge

and levying money damages against defendants.

The Supreme Court says it's no longer acceptable for these agency adjudications to continue as they have.

Cato is Jennifer Shelb and Will Yeatman of the Pacific Legal Foundation discuss why more legal

fights instigated by federal agencies will soon have to be adjudicated in a real courtroom. For anxious court watchers and most especially those who wait with

bated breath for the annual Cato Institute Supreme Court review. A note on that document that is currently rapidly being assembled.

Willie Yatman, our former colleague, will be writing the article dealing with the case we are

about to discuss, and that is Jarkasy.

So Willie, if you don't mind, you and I have discussed this many times, the idea that

federal agencies have at least up until now have been able to adjudicate claims in their own sort of

Potemkin courts. They set up agency employees who effectively play every role that you might expect in a real court.

What changes under Jarkasy? It's a tremendous change. One,

the answers to that question are still, were still discerning. It was a big deal, however.

To your point, it seems to take prosecutions for fraud-like violations involving civil money penalties.

It takes these out of these agency in-house courts and puts them in real courts.

And that's, you know, as you see V. Jorgasies, that's big effect.

It was a case that pertains to the Seventh Amendment right. This is something

that Blackstone, the famed jurist, not the magician, called the glory of the English law. It was a big deal to our

...