Have you heard about a lawsuit filed earlier last week against the Securities and Exchange Commission due to its failure to respond to a petition asking the Commission to adopt political spending disclosure requirements?
But must the Commission act on the petitions that are submitted to it? Rule 192 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice requires only that the Commission acknowledge receipt and give notice of any action taken by the Commission:
The Secretary shall acknowledge, in writing, receipt of the petition and refer it to the appropriate division or office for consideration and recommendation. Such recommendations shall be transmitted with the petition to the Commission for such action as the Commission deems appropriate. The Secretary shall notify the petitioner of the action taken by the Commission.
At least three fundamental requirements are absent from Rule 192. First, the rule doesn’t require the Commission to take action. Second, the rule doesn’t require the Commission to act promptly. Finally, the rule doesn’t require the Commission to explain its reasons for denying a petition. Indeed, Rule 192 falls far short of the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act as explained by then Circuit Court Judge Ruth Bader Ginsberg:
Section 4(e) of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 553(e), commands that “[e]ach agency shall give an interested person the right to petition for the issuance … of a rule.” Section 6(a), 5 U.S.C. § 555(e), requires “prompt notice” in the event an agency denies such a petition. Further, section 6(a) directs that when a denial is not self-explanatory, “the notice shall be accompanied by a brief statement of the grounds for denial.”
Ass’n of Investment Bankers v. Securities and Exchange Commission, 676 F.2d 857, 864 (1982).
One obvious issue for the plaintiff in this most recent lawsuit is whether judicial review is even available. The plaintiff doesn’t allege that the Commission has actually denied his petition. To the contrary, the plaintiff admits that “To date, the SEC has given no indication it is still considering whether to recommend the issuance of such a proposed rule, nor has it otherwise responded to the pending rulemaking petitions”. The complaint cites WWHT, Inc. v. Federal Communications Com., 656 F.2d 807 (D.C. Cir. 1981) but that case involved an actual order denying a petition for rulemaking.
Even if the court decides that a failure to respond is tantamount to a denial, plaintiff will still have an uphill climb. As Judge Edwards observed in WWHT, Inc. review is “very limited”. The court will also have to grapple with the conundrum of how to conduct a review when there is no record.
