COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMM'N v. SCHOR
4 stars based on
Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. SchorU. InCongress amended commodity options and futures trading commission v schor case brief Act to create a more comprehensive regulatory framework for the trading of future contracts. The section of the statute and the CFTC regulation at issue in this case, both of which were intended to provide an inexpensive and expeditious method for the settlement of futures contract-related claims, were challenged by the customers of a broker as being violative of Article III of the United States Constitution.
Conti and Richard L. Schor filed a counterclaim in the federal suit, asserting the same charges against Conti it had made in its complaint to the CFTC. Schor moved to dismiss the district court action, but the judge declined.
Conti then voluntarily dismissed the suit, in order to present its counterclaim against Schor for the debit balance as a defense in the CFTC action. Marathon Pipe Line Co. Supreme Court granted certiorarivacated the judgmentand remanded the case back to the Court of Appeals for further consideration under Thomas v. Union Carbide Agricultural Products Co. The Court of Appeals reinstated its previous judgment, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari again. She held that the D.
The situation faced by the litigants here was common: She then turned to the Article III issue. The right to be heard commodity options and futures trading commission v schor case brief an Article III tribunal is not absolute, and is commodity options and futures trading commission v schor case brief to waiver by the parties. She concluded that while Congress could not vest administrative agencies with ancillary or pendent jurisdiction of all claims, it was not outright forbidden for Congress to vest an agency with such jurisdiction over some claims.
Justice Brennanjoined by Justice Marshalldissented on the grounds that allowing Congress to grant such jurisdictional powers to administrative agencies eroded the powers of Article III courts, and deprived litigants of the impartial decision-making authority of an independent judiciary.
He accused the majority of putting concerns of convenience and judicial economy ahead of separation of powers. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.