Arizona’s highest court considers jury rights within the Administrative State

Today, the Arizona Supreme Court convened to discuss a critical case centered around the issue of whether bureaucratic agencies have the authority to overlook an individual’s constitutional right to a trial by a jury. This case originated when the state’s Corporation Commission accused the individuals behind a company named EFG of securities fraud. The proceedings surrounding this case, as well as two other cases currently under review by the high court, raise questions about whether agencies are obligated to uphold the promise in the Arizona Constitution that the right to a trial by jury shall remain “inviolate.”

The issue at hand draws parallels to a similar case that transpired two years ago involving the U.S. Supreme Court. In this case, the court ruled that the Securities and Exchange Commission could not pursue fraud cases through internal hearings as it would violate the Seventh Amendment’s jury protections. While some matters can be settled internally, fraud, being a crime that warrants a jury trial, should adhere to the protections provided in the Seventh Amendment.

Although the Arizona Constitution appears straightforward in its guarantee of a jury trial, it also established the state Corporation Commission, which possesses the authority to levy fines for unlawful acts. The Commission argues that it can impose fines without concerning itself with the jury requirement. However, this argument seems flawed when considered in light of other rights safeguarded in the state’s bill of rights. Just as the right to due process or free speech cannot be disregarded, the right to a jury trial should be equally respected.

During the oral arguments presented this morning by Pacific Legal Foundation, Justice Clint Bolick raised a crucial question to the Commission’s attorneys regarding their stance on other bill of rights protections. The response to this query seemed unsatisfactory, prompting a notable silence in the courtroom. The outcomes of cases like EFG, Sync Title, and Cellebration have the potential to significantly impact Arizonans, and perhaps individuals in other states that mirror Arizona’s “inviolate” constitutional language.

While discussions have focused on the risks associated with the growing “administrative state,” it’s important to note that state bureaucracies wield substantial power, often exceeding that of federal agencies. State constitutions offer a unique opportunity to bolster and safeguard liberty in a manner that the federal constitution might not. If the Arizona court rules in favor of upholding the state constitution’s jury trial rights, it could pave the way for other state courts to impose meaningful constraints on unelected bureaucracies nationwide.