Supreme Court Amici Brief of Law Professors in Support of Petitioners in Free Enterprise Fund V. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, No. 08-861

2009 ◽  
Author(s):  
Donna M. Nagy
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Free Enterprise ◽  
Public Company ◽  
Law Professors

scholarly journals Is The Pcaob a “Heavily Controlled Component” Of The Sec?: An Essential Question In The Constitutional Controversy

2009 ◽  
Vol 71 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Donna M. Nagy
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
Free Enterprise ◽  
Public Companies ◽  
The Public ◽  
Sarbanes Oxley ◽  
Public Company ◽  
Essential Question ◽  
The U.S

The U.S. Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments in Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, described as “the most important separation-of-powers case regarding the President’s appointment and removal powers to reach the courts in the last 20 years.” Established by Congress as the cornerstone of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (“Sarbanes-Oxley” or the “Act”), the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (the “PCAOB” or the “Board”) was structured as “a strong, independent board to oversee the conduct of the auditors of public companies.” Its principal mission was to prevent the type of auditing failures that contributed to the scandals at Enron, WorldCom, and numerous other public companies in the period leading up to the passage of the Act.

BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE ADMINISTRATIVE, CONSTITUTIONAL, AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW PROFESSORS URGING REVERSAL AND SUPPORTING PETITIONERS In 19-1434 & 19-1452 (U.S. Supreme Court)

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joshua D. Sarnoff ◽  
Alan B. Morrison ◽  
Robert L. Glicksman ◽  
Dmitry Karshtedt ◽  
Mark A. Lemley
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Property Law ◽  
Amicus Curiae ◽  
Intellectual Property Law ◽  
Law Professors

The PCAOB Meets the Constitution: The Supreme Court to Decide on the PCAOB’s Conformity with the Separation of Powers Doctrine and Appointments Clause

2010 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 79-93 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ronald R. King
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
Securities And Exchange Commission ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Board Members ◽  
Non Profit ◽  
Sarbanes Oxley ◽  
Public Company ◽  
The Future ◽  
Accounting Standard Setting

SYNOPSIS: This commentary provides an overview of the case currently before the U.S. Supreme Court that alleges constitutional problems with the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB). The PCAOB, a Board designed to oversee auditing for publicly traded firms, was created by Congress when it passed the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (hereafter, SOX). To enhance PCAOB’s independence from political pressures, Congress established it as a private-sector, non-profit organization, and gave oversight powers to the Securities and Exchange Commission (hereafter, SEC), an independent agency. The plaintiffs in this case allege that Congress empowered the PCAOB with broad executive powers, yet limited the President’s ability to appoint Board members (thus violating the appointments clause of the Constitution) and to control and/or remove Board members (thus violating the separation of powers doctrine of the Constitution). The Supreme Court’s decision about the constitutionality of the PCAOB is important because of its potential impact on (1) the future of auditing oversight; (2) the validity of SOX; and (3) the future of independent agencies in general. From a policy point of view, the case highlights the importance of the combination of independence and accountability for auditing and accounting standard setting and practice.

scholarly journals When Courts Run Amuck: A Book Review of Unequal

2018 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 391-404
Author(s):  
Theresa M. Beiner
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Employment Discrimination ◽  
The United States ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
Legal Standards ◽  
Point Analysis ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Law Professors

In Unequal: How America’s Courts Undermine Discrimination Law (“Unequal”), law professors Sandra F. Sperino and Suja A. Thomas provide a point-by-point analysis of how the federal courts’ interpretations of federal anti-discrimination laws have undermined their efficacy to provide relief to workers whose employers have allegedly engaged in discrimination. The cases’ results are consistently pro-employer, even while the Supreme Court of the United States—a court not known for being particularly pro-plaintiff—has occasionally ruled in favor of plaintiff employees. The authors suggest some reasons for this apparent anti-plaintiff bias among the federal courts, although they do not settle on a particular reason for the courts’ frequent dismissal of these claims. Instead, the book seeks to expose how these seemingly erroneous dismissals occur and suggest avenues for reforming these legal standards. This Review begins by describing the book’s main arguments. Throughout this description, the Review supports and at times challenges some of the authors’ positions. In particular, this Review examines arguments regarding the role politics play in the courts’ decisionmaking in employment discrimination cases. It also explores the ironic result that the courts’ approaches to these cases actually may lead to more discrimination in the workplace and therefore more cases. Finally, this Review describes the authors’ suggestions for reform and proposes that changes in this area of the law are best accomplished by the entities that created the problems—the courts.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document