Corporate Accountability

National Association of Private Fund Managers v. Securities and Exchange Commission

In National Association of Private Fund Managers v. Securities and Exchange Commission, the Fifth Circuit is determining whether Congress granted the SEC the authority to regulate private fund advisers.

Case Summary

In 2023, following an investigation that revealed widespread misconduct in the private equity industry, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued new rules for private fund advisors. Investors in private equity include large funds and universities, but also many private and public pension funds and non-profit organizations. The SEC created basic guardrails on the activities of private fund advisors, largely clarifying existing investor protections and requiring transparency and anti-favoritism measures to enable investors to make better-informed decisions. The SEC acted pursuant to its authority under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and the Dodd-Frank Act, but a coalition of groups representing private equity fund managers challenged the new rules, invoking the “major questions doctrine.”

In December 2023, CAC filed an amicus brief in support of the SEC. Our brief makes two main points.

First, we explain that under Supreme Court precedent the major questions doctrine applies only in “extraordinary” cases, where an agency’s breathtaking assertion of new power reflects a dubious effort to transform the fundamental nature of its authority. Supreme Court decisions have consistently demonstrated that more is needed to implicate the doctrine than economic and political significance alone; other factors must also indicate that the agency is subverting congressional intent by seeking “an unheralded power representing a transformative expansion in its regulatory authority.”

Second, we show that applying the major questions doctrine too broadly would undermine traditional statutory interpretation and constitutional principles. We discuss how the major questions doctrine is in tension with textualism because it emphasizes pragmatic considerations outside the statutory text. We also explain that the Constitution’s original public meaning does not support the premise underlying the doctrine: the Founders had no qualms about directing the executive branch to handle major policy questions, and history does not suggest that Congress must speak in any particular manner to do so. Finally, we explain why overuse of the major questions doctrine would undermine the separation of powers and thrust the courts beyond their proper role in interpreting the law.

Case Timeline

  • December 22, 2023

    CAC files amicus brief in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals

    Private Fund Managers CAC Brief
  • February 5, 2024

    The Fifth Circuit hears oral arguments

More from Corporate Accountability

Corporate Accountability
U.S. Supreme Court

Cantero v. Bank of America

In Cantero v. Bank of America, the Supreme Court is considering whether a state law protecting New York homeowners is preempted by the federal National Banking Act.
Corporate Accountability
December 5, 2023

RELEASE: Supreme Court Oral Argument Shows Conservative Attempt to Limit Congress’s Taxing Power is Misguided

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court this morning in Moore v....
By: Brian R. Frazelle
Corporate Accountability
U.S. Supreme Court

Moore v. United States

In Moore v. United States, the Supreme Court is considering a challenge to Congress’s power to tax income under the Sixteenth Amendment.
Corporate Accountability
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey

Bristol Myers Squibb v. Becerra and Janssen v. Becerra

In Bristol Myers Squibb v. Becerra and Janssen v. Becerra, the District of New Jersey is considering whether the Inflation Reduction Act’s Medicare drug price negotiation program amounts to an unconstitutional taking of their property.
Corporate Accountability
September 28, 2023

Lopsided Success for Corporate Interests: The New Normal Under the Supreme Court’s Conservative Supermajority (2022-2023 Term)

Every year, the Supreme Court moves the needle further and further in favor of industry.
By: Brian R. Frazelle
Corporate Accountability
June 30, 2023

RELEASE: Chamber of Commerce Has Another Remarkably Successful Term Advancing Its Positions Before the Supreme Court, Constitutional Accountability Center Finds

WASHINGTON, DC – The 2022-2023 Supreme Court Term has just concluded, and the U.S. Chamber...
By: Brian R. Frazelle