Reining in the SEC

Every “investment contract” requires a contract. Wow – imagine that! Who knew? Not the SEC, which coerced numerous settlements from blockchain tech entrepreneurs and digital asset platforms while claiming no contract need be proven. 

But in SEC v. Ripple Labs, the courts have now held again – see SEC v. Kik for the first time – that every investment contract requires a “contract, transaction, or scheme” – exactly what the Supreme Court said 77 years ago in Howey.  

Good news for entrepreneurs, exchanges, traders, and especially for the 40 million American adults who buy and sell crypto assets. Bad news for empire-building bureaucrats who disregard Supreme Court opinions. 

Here’s another Supreme Court opinion that the SEC is ignoring: West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency. And here’s another case that the SEC will lose in the Supreme Court: Jarkesy.

This used to be an agency that only pushed cases that it believed to have merit. Lately it has decided to push cases until the courts stop it. Big difference, as former SEC Chairman Jay Clayton has pointed out. Fortunately for the rest of us, the courts are now stopping an SEC whose Chair won’t take the bit. 

Judge’s decision is a boost for other crypto firms that claim regulators have too aggressively policed market

View referenced article