Romeril v. SEC
Romeril v. SEC
Romeril v. SEC
21-1284
IN THE
pìéêÉãÉ=`çìêí=çÑ=íÜÉ=råáíÉÇ=pí~íÉë=
_______________
BARRY D. ROMERIL,
Petitioner,
v.
Respondent.
_______________
BRIEF OF THE
COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE,
CATO INSTITUTE, INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE,
AND INSTITUTE FOR FREE SPEECH
AS AMICI CURIAE SUPPORTING PETITIONER
_______________
HELGI C. WALKER
Counsel of Record
BRIAN A. RICHMAN
JOSHUA R. ZUCKERMAN
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
(202) 955-8500
HWalker@gibsondunn.com
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page(s)
Cases
Chaffin v. Stynchcombe,
412 U.S. 17 (1973) .................................................. 6
Collins v. Yellen,
141 S. Ct. 1761 (2021) ............................................ 7
Flannery v. SEC,
810 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2015) .................................... 13
In re G.A.D., Inc.,
340 F.3d 331 (6th Cir. 2003) .................................. 7
Jarkesy v. SEC,
803 F.3d 9 (D.C. Cir. 2015) .................................. 11
Ex parte Lange,
85 U.S. (18 Wall.) 163 (1873) ................................. 7
Montgomery v. Louisiana,
577 U.S. 190 (2016) ................................................ 7
iv
Perry v. Sindermann,
408 U.S. 593 (1972) ................................................ 5
Saad v. SEC,
873 F.3d 297 (D.C. Cir. 2017) .............................. 12
Ex parte Siebold,
100 U.S. 371 (1879) ................................................ 7
Thomas v. Collins,
323 U.S. 516 (1945) ................................................ 2
Tilton v. SEC,
824 F.3d 276 (2d Cir. 2016) ................................. 11
Constitutional Provisions
Statutes
15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)...................................................... 11
Rules
Regulations
Administrative Proceedings
In re John P. Flannery,
2014 WL 7145625
(SEC Dec. 15, 2014) ............................................. 12
Other Authorities
2
The Commission’s attempt to prevent an American citizen
from telling his elected representatives that the Commission has
wrongfully prosecuted him blatantly violates the Petition
Clause. That the Commission even thinks that this is a legiti-
mate use of the agency’s prosecutorial power underscores the
need for this Court’s immediate intervention.
15