XM无法为美国居民提供服务。

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>

免责声明: XM Group仅提供在线交易平台的执行服务和访问权限,并允许个人查看和/或使用网站或网站所提供的内容,但无意进行任何更改或扩展,也不会更改或扩展其服务和访问权限。所有访问和使用权限,将受下列条款与条例约束:(i) 条款与条例;(ii) 风险提示;以及(iii) 完整免责声明。请注意,网站所提供的所有讯息,仅限一般资讯用途。此外,XM所有在线交易平台的内容并不构成,也不能被用于任何未经授权的金融市场交易邀约和/或邀请。金融市场交易对于您的投资资本含有重大风险。

所有在线交易平台所发布的资料,仅适用于教育/资讯类用途,不包含也不应被视为用于金融、投资税或交易相关咨询和建议,或是交易价格纪录,或是任何金融商品或非应邀途径的金融相关优惠的交易邀约或邀请。

本网站上由XM和第三方供应商所提供的所有内容,包括意见、新闻、研究、分析、价格、其他资讯和第三方网站链接,皆保持不变,并作为一般市场评论所提供,而非投资性建议。所有在线交易平台所发布的资料,仅适用于教育/资讯类用途,不包含也不应被视为适用于金融、投资税或交易相关咨询和建议,或是交易价格纪录,或是任何金融商品或非应邀途径的金融相关优惠的交易邀约或邀请。请确保您已阅读并完全理解,XM非独立投资研究提示和风险提示相关资讯,更多详情请点击 这里

风险提示: 您的资金存在风险。杠杆商品并不适合所有客户。请详细阅读我们的风险声明