Now it's time for our daily Bloomberg Law of Brief, exploring legal issues in the news, and Today, Bloomberg Law host Doing Grosso discusses why one appeals court ruled the SEC's use of in house judges unconstitutional while another allowed the practice to continue. She speaks with Peter Henning, a law professor at Wayne State University, and Gregory Murvillo, founding partner and Morvillo LLP. Peter explained the reasoning that led
these appellate courts to come to different conclusions, completely different conclusions. Well, the issue here is whether the secs administrative law judges are what are called inferior officers. The Constitution requires that an inferior officer be appointed either by the President or by someone who Congress designates who can appoint that person, and so you have to go through a particular appointment process.
If you're just an employee like I was back long ago, then you're just hired through the regular civil service process. The split here is whether these judges are inferior officers. Do they qualify for that position? And there's some history in the Supreme Court about that, but it's really a pretty simple straightforward issue. Are they or aren't they. Of course playing that out will be the really difficult part.
Greg The SEC has been using administrative judges since shortly after it was created in four Why the controversy now, Well, the controversy stems from the fact that most defendants don't believe it is an inherently fair process. The SEC wins somewhere in the neighborhood of of their cases that are brought in front of an SEC a l J, whereas when they bring cases in federal court there down and
around the seventy mark. So the difference between going to federal court and going to have your case heard before in a l J is a huge one in terms of the of whether you can or can't win. And indeed, there are some a ljs who have never decided for anyone but the SEC and to defendants look at it and they think this is an inherently unfair process. That's
how it started this kind of a challenge. As Gregory Morvillo, founding partner at moorevilleo l LP, and Peter Henning, a law professor ed Wayne State University, speaking with Bloomberg Law host joom Garrosso. You can listen to Bloomberg Law wait days at one pm Wall Street Time here on Bloomberg Radio Now Among the top legal stories from Bloomberg Law Qualcom says China's Mazoo Technology has agreed to pay licensing fees to settle legal battles in China and three other countries.
The move demonstrates that the U S company can defend its intellectual property in the world, the biggest smartphone market. This is the first time Quall Calm has asked Chinese authorities to enforce a settlement that set terms for licensing fees. The deal also ends patent conflicts in Germany, France, and the US. Lawyers in a climate change case want a question President elect Donald Trump's choice for a Secretary of State x On Mobile CEO Rex Tiller, since testimony is
set for the day before Trump's inauguration January. The lawsuit was filed by teenagers claiming the US government failed to protect the environment from global warming. X Son has joined the government in fighting this suit. In California, a parole panel has delayed a decision on whether to release an accomplice of cult killer Charles Manson. Patricia Cranwinkle took part in the killing of actress Sharon Tate and six other
people forty seven years ago. She's now sixty nine, has been denied parole thirteen times, and is the longest serving female inmates in California and as this morning's Bloomberg Law Brief. You can find more legal news at Bloomberg Law dot com and Bloomberg BNA dot com. Attorneys will find exceptional legal research and business development tools there as well. Visit Bloomberg Law dot com and Bloomberg Bena dot com for more information.