A conservative radio host took on the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and won. The Supreme Court Thursday, June 27, ruled 6-3 in favor of George Jarkesy, who was charged with securities fraud and ordered by an SEC judge to pay a civil penalty of $300,000.

Jarkesy appealed, claiming the SEC violated his Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial by deciding his case using an in-house judge, known as an administrative law judge (ALJ). These are judges in the executive branch, not the judicial branch. They are employed by the agency bringing the charges. 

The argument for ALJs across government is that they’re specialized judges in that field. But remember the saying, “the house always wins.” A Wall Street Journal analysis from 2010 to 2015 showed the SEC won 90% of cases before its in-house judges and just 69% before federal court judges. 

“I think it’s, honestly, a cheap default by the SEC,” said Stephen Best, an attorney at Brown Rudnick who successfully defended Mark Cuban against the SEC’s insider trading claims.

Straight Arrow News interviewed Best following the Supreme Court’s oral arguments in the Jarkesy case.

“I think that it was a ghost that nobody really focused on until after the Mark Cuban insider trading case,” Best said. “And when the SEC had incredible difficulties accommodating the requirements of the U.S. District Court’s rules on discovery and trial practice, they ran back to their home at the ALJ.”

The Jarkesy case had the potential to upend the court system. There are more than twice as many ALJs as federal judges. Had the Supreme Court ruled the use of ALJs as a whole is unconstitutional, this would have flooded the courts with cases. 

“The floodgates are about to open up and that’s what the Supreme Court’s worried about,” Best said at the time. “And so they’re going to be very careful in tailoring their opinion, but nonetheless, however careful they’re going to be, it’s still going to leave room for interpretation.”

At last count by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, there are more than 1,900 ALJs across federal agencies. Eighty-six percent of them deal in Social Security cases. Just five judges come from the SEC as of 2017. In Thursday’s decision, the Supreme Court was careful to keep its ruling specific to that house, and even more narrowly, to fraud cases.

“A defendant facing a fraud suit has the right to be tried by a jury of his peers before a neutral adjudicator,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion. “Rather than recognize that right, the dissent would permit Congress to concentrate the roles of prosecutor, judge, and jury in the hands of the Executive Branch. That is the very opposite of the separation of powers that the Constitution demands.”

“Beyond the majority’s legal errors, its ruling reveals a far more fundamental problem: This Court’s repeated failure to appreciate that its decisions can threaten the separation of powers,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote for the dissent. “Here, that threat comes from the Court’s mistaken conclusion that Congress cannot assign a certain public-rights matter for initial adjudication to the Executive because it must come only to the Judiciary.”

This likely isn’t the last time the issue of ALJs will come up. Facebook parent company Meta sued the Federal Trade Commission last year challenging its use of the in-house justice system, also claiming it violates the company’s right to a trial jury.

Humanoid robots aren’t just science fiction anymore; in fact, they’re almost ready to enter the workforce. Amazon has been exploring replacing some of its warehouse staff with robots, and Elon Musk is also considering the potential of robotic helpers.

The latest developments come from scientists at the University of Tokyo, who have created a type of skin from human cells. This pink, gooey material can stretch into what resembles an awkward smile.

Download the SAN app today to stay up-to-date with Unbiased. Straight Facts™.

Point phone camera here

Researchers use a special gel loaded with skin-forming cells to sculpt a “living layer” that adheres to robotic surfaces, bringing biology into play when the robot smiles.

Researchers believe this technology could enhance our understanding of facial expressions and advance treatments for facial paralysis, as well as improve cosmetic and orthopedic surgeries. In the future, stroke patients and burn victims who have undergone major surgeries could benefit from more natural skin augmentations.

While it will take many more years of testing for this technology to become an everyday reality, researchers hope it will make robots in the workforce more approachable. Although the commercial viability of humanoid robots like Boston Dynamics‘ Atlas and Tesla’s Optimus remains limited, recent advancements are starting to bridge the gap to practical applications.

At Tesla’s annual shareholder meeting, CEO Elon Musk suggested that humanoid robots could significantly increase the company’s market value to $25 trillion in the future. He also predicted that by 2025, Tesla would have “a few thousand” Optimus robots operational in its factories.

Meanwhile, Boston Dynamics has been selling its robot dog, Spot, since 2019 and hopes to one day bring its humanoid “Atlas” robot to market.

The Supreme Court ruled Thursday, June 27, that the Sackler family — which owned Purdue Pharma and marketed the opioid pain reliever OxyContin — is not immune from lawsuits. The high court said the deal made with a bankruptcy court to avoid liability is improper. 

The 5-4 decision was ideologically mixed. The opinion was written by Justice Neil Gorsuch, joined by Justices Thomas, Alito, Barrett and Jackson. The dissenting opinion was written by Justice Brett Kavanaugh and joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Sotomayor and Kagan. 

Download the SAN app today to stay up-to-date with Unbiased. Straight Facts™.

Point phone camera here

Here are the facts of the case from the court: 

Between 1996 and 2019, Purdue made $34 billion in revenue mostly from the sale of OxyContin. That gave the Sackler family an estimated net worth of $14 billion. In 2007, a Purdue affiliate pleaded guilty to a federal felony for misbranding OxyContin as “less addictive” and “less subject to abuse” than other pain medications. Thousands of lawsuits followed, so the Sacklers began taking $11 billion out of the company thinking the lawsuits would eventually impact them directly.

During bankruptcy proceedings with Purdue, the family proposed to return $4.3 billion to the company in exchange for a judicial order releasing them from all opioid-related claims.

The Supreme Court just decided that can’t happen. 

“The code generally reserves discharge for a debtor who places substantially all of their assets on the table,” Justice Gorsuch wrote in the majority opinion. “And, ordinarily, it does not include claims based on ‘fraud’ or those alleging ‘willful and malicious injury.’ The Sackler discharge defies these limitations. The Sacklers have not filed for bankruptcy, nor have they placed virtually all their assets on the table for distribution to creditors. Yet, they seek an order discharging a broad sweep of present and future claims against them, including ones for fraud and willful injury.” 

Gorsuch also wrote that the decision is a “narrow one.” 

“Nothing in the opinion should be construed to call into question consensual third-party releases offered in connection with a bankruptcy reorganization plan,” Gorsuch explained. “Nor does the Court express a view on what qualifies as a consensual release.”

However, there is concern this decision could negatively impact what opioid victims ultimately receive as compensation. 

“Today’s decision is wrong on the law and devastating for more than 100,000 opioid victims and their families,” Justice Kavanaugh wrote in the dissent. “The Court’s decision rewrites the text of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code and restricts the long-established authority of bankruptcy courts to fashion fair and equitable relief for mass-tort victims.” 

The families of the late Dr. Mortimer Sackler and late Dr. Raymond Sackler said in a statement that they remain hopeful about reaching a resolution that provides substantial resources to combat a complex public health crisis.

The statement continued, “The unfortunate reality is that the alternative is costly and chaotic legal proceedings in courtrooms across the country. While we are confident that we would prevail in any future litigation given the profound misrepresentations about our families and the opioid crisis, we continue to believe that a swift negotiated agreement to provide billions of dollars for people and communities in need is the best way forward.”

It’s unclear exactly what happens next. The bankruptcy deal will have to be renegotiated and some victims’ families want the Sacklers to face criminal charges.

NASA has the end of the International Space Station (ISS) in its sights as it deals with a historic lawsuit concerning space junk originating from the station. NASA awarded SpaceX nearly $1 billion to make the vehicle that will take the ISS out of its orbit when it’s time to retire in a few years. 

The ISS launched in 1998 and is expected to be taken out of orbit by 2030.

In a press release on Wednesday, June 26, NASA said both the space station and SpaceX’s deorbit vehicle will “destructively” break up as they reenter Earth’s atmosphere. However, that’s not always the case when objects return from space. 

Download the SAN app today to stay up-to-date with Unbiased. Straight Facts™.

Point phone camera here

In fact, a family is suing NASA after a piece of space junk crashed into their home in Naples, Florida, in March. The family’s attorney, Mica Nguyen Worthy, said this first-of-its-kind case will set a precedent for future space debris claims.

“Space debris is a real and serious issue because of the increase in space traffic in recent years,” Worthy said.

While no one was injured when the chunk of metal from the International Space Station tore through the roof of the family’s Naples home, Worthy said it was a “near miss situation” that “could have been catastrophic.”

Homeowner Alejandro Otero said his son was alone inside at the time and heard a loud noise.

“It was a tremendous sound,” Otero told WINK News in March. “It almost hit my son. He was two rooms over and heard it all.”

A cylindrical object was found wedged in a wall of the home. NASA analyzed it and later confirmed it was a metal piece from a cargo pallet used to carry batteries that had been jettisoned from the space station in 2021. 

Michelle Hanlon, the executive director of the Center for Air and Space Law at the University of Mississippi, recently told The Associated Press about the growing issue of space junk.

“Orbital debris is the name we’ve given old satellites, old rocket parts that are just floating in orbit,” Hanlon explained. “Now, you think space is vast? It’s infinite. Who cares? Well, our orbit is not infinite. And so these are objects that are stuck in our orbit and continue to circle the Earth. And it’s starting to get crowded up there.”

Like other orbital debris, NASA believed the 5,800-pound cargo would burn upon reentry into the Earth’s atmosphere, as the space station itself is expected to do in the near future. But not all of the load was destroyed — specifically the 1.6-pound metal object.

“Sometimes when things enter the atmosphere, they don’t burn up completely,” Hanlon said. “A few weeks ago, a home in Florida was hit by a piece of orbital debris. Everyone was fine. Nobody was hurt, but we don’t have a system to deal with that. We have a liability convention. Because it happened in the U.S., claims have to be made through the Federal Tort Claims Act and you have to show negligence.”

The Oteros are seeking compensation to account for the “stress and impact” the event has caused them. NASA has six months to respond.