Lucia v SEC

Fighting to Lift the SEC's "Forever Bar" After a Constitutional Victory

 

Thirteen years ago, the SEC launched a public enforcement action against Mr. Lucia, branding him a lawbreaker and dragging him through an unconstitutional administrative process riddled with bias and coercion.

​

No investors lost money. No one complained. But Mr. Lucia lost his business, his reputation, and nearly everything he had built over a decades-long career. Along the way, he fought and won for rights now restored to all of us by the Supreme Court.

​

ICAN is now proud to fight on behalf of Mr. Lucia, representing him in his motion to lift a "forever bar" imposed against him by the SEC. Mr. Lucia's saga in confronting the SEC reveals how a federal agency can throw every arbitrary, capricious, and unconstitutional obstacle imaginable at an individual.

​

A Historic Supreme Court Victory Built on Personal Devastation

​

If Mr. Lucia's name rings a bell, it's because he stood up when almost no one could. His landmark Supreme Court victory in Lucia v. SEC helped expose the structural flaws in the SEC's in-house courts and paved the way for future rulings that have reaffirmed the right to a jury trial in securities enforcement actions.

​

But this historic legal achievement came at a devastating personal cost.

​

For 30 years, Mr. Lucia maintained an unblemished career as a financial adviser, author, and broadcaster, before the SEC came after him through an unconstitutional administrative process that destroyed a lifetime of work.

​

Now 75, Mr. Lucia is not seeking to return to managing money. He's seeking the basic ability to share his expertise and earn a living after the SEC's actions left him virtually unemployable in his field, depleting his life savings and necessitating his reliance on others, and now trying to care for his wife, who is dealing with a serious illness.

​

Because Mr. Lucia ultimately reached a settlement with the SEC, and because that settlement includes the usual unconstitutional gag order included in every SEC settlement, here is what we have to say about the merits of the SEC’s underlying case.

​

​

​

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But even without getting into the underlying facts, Mr. Lucia’s saga in confronting the SEC is worth understanding.

​

Ray Lucia Sr.’s Fight Against an Unconstitutional Process

​

Beginning in 2012, an administrative law judge (“ALJ”) employed by the SEC presided over a hearing to determine whether the SEC’s allegations had merit. No federal judge, no jury, no federal rules of civil procedure or evidence were applied. When the ALJ ruled in favor of its employer (the SEC) and against Mr. Lucia, he, of course, had the right to appeal. But his right to appeal was not to a court; it was to the SEC itself. Unsurprisingly, the SEC ruled in favor of its own allegations and in favor of the opinion of its own ALJ. Mr. Lucia then finally had the ability to appeal the SEC’s decision to a federal appellate court. But during this entire process, Mr. Lucia continued arguing to the ALJ, to the SEC, and to the appellate court that the ALJ proceeding was unconstitutional. This constitutional argument was rejected at every step of the way until he finally reached the United States Supreme Court, which, in a 7-2 opinion written by Justice Kagan in 2018, ruled in Ray’s favor, concluding that the ALJ was unconstitutionally appointed, tainting the entire process from the beginning. 

​

Despite his Supreme Court victory, Ray's "reward" was to restart the entire process before one of the same ALJs re-appointed by the SEC.

​

The SEC’s renewed administrative hearing process continued to suffer from other constitutional problems. Ray sought relief from those other constitutional problems in federal court, but the district court denied jurisdiction, forcing him back through the administrative process. The Supreme Court later repudiated this denial of court access in Axon v. FTC/Cochran v. SEC in 2023, but it was too late to benefit Mr. Lucia. Ray Lucia was also forever denied the right to a federal court jury—a right later guaranteed by the Supreme Court in SEC v. Jarkesy in 2024, again too late for him. 

​

A Settlement Born of Desperation After 8 Years Defending Against an Agency Without Limits

​

Having exhausted his financial and emotional resources after years of fighting an unconstitutional process, Mr. Lucia faced a Hobson's Choice during the COVID pandemic. With his appeal pending before the Ninth Circuit, he accepted a settlement in June 2020, neither admitting nor denying the SEC's allegations while agreeing to dismiss his appeal.

​

The settlement imposed a cease-and-desist order and industry bars, but included a provision allowing him to apply for reentry after three years from September 3, 2015—meaning he was immediately eligible to apply when the settlement was signed. This backdated start date was unusual—a tacit acknowledgment that Mr. Lucia posed no threat to the public.

 

Because Mr. Lucia was forced into the SEC's administrative process  his full defense was never presented in a federal public court. The administrative proceedings meant that only the SEC's allegations became part of the public narrative, while Mr. Lucia's side of the story remained buried in an administrative record few would ever see. Even worse, his settlement with the SEC includes the usual unconstitutional gag order included in every SEC settlement, which prevents him from ever telling his side of the story or defending his reputation. This creates a one-sided public narrative where the SEC's damaging press releases remain accessible while Mr. Lucia is forever silenced from providing any exculpatory response.

​

Despite these multiple Supreme Court rebukes—Lucia, Cochran, and Jarkesy—all confirming that Mr. Lucia was denied basic constitutional rights, the SEC’s power has reigned over Mr. Lucia’s life for 13 years.

​

This is where ICAN enters Ray’s story.

​

The Devastating Aftermath of Mr. Lucia’s “Forever Bar"

​

Despite settling without admitting wrongdoing and complying with all settlement terms (including payment of a $25,000 civil penalty), Mr. Lucia faces ongoing consequences resulting from his settlement. 

​

Professional Barriers: Employers have expressed "deep regret" that, despite Mr. Lucia's valuable expertise and the non-regulated nature of proposed educational roles, the regulatory stigma prevents engagement due to reputational concerns.

​

Financial Hardship: Mr. Lucia has depleted his savings and relies on others for support, as unforeseen family health challenges have required additional resources, compelling him to seek re-entry into the workforce. Now 75, Mr. Lucia is simply seeking to earn a living sharing his expertise. 

​

Lifetime Consequences: While the SEC's original press releases and damaging public statements remain accessible, the settlement's gag order prevents Mr. Lucia from defending his own reputation or providing exculpatory speech, creating a one-sided narrative that has transformed a time-limited bar into a de facto permanent exclusion.

​

Why This Case Matters

​

Mr. Lucia's ordeal exposes the coercive nature of SEC administrative proceedings, which the Supreme Court has repeatedly criticized. When regulatory agencies can deny basic constitutional rights—the right to an impartial judge, the right to a jury trial, and the right to challenge unconstitutional processes in federal court—no entrepreneur or investor is safe.

​

Even after winning at the Supreme Court and proving the SEC's process was unconstitutional, Mr. Lucia was forced to endure the same flawed system all over again. The agency's unlimited resources and ability to drag out proceedings create what Justice Gorsuch called "regulatory extortion"—forcing settlements from people who cannot outlast the government's resources.

​

The combination of the SEC’s press tactics and “forever bar” system creates a permanent barrier disguised as a pathway to reentry, effectively transforming what was supposed to be a time-limited restriction into a lifetime exclusion.

​

Standing for Justice

​

ICAN represents Mr. Lucia in seeking relief from industry bars that serve no remedial purpose and have created consequences far exceeding what was contemplated in his settlement. This will allow Mr. Lucia to work and care for his family after losing everything in his original fight against the SEC, which paved the way for future protections from administrative overreach.

 

His case exemplifies our commitment to defending those who have been wronged by an agency that has lost sight of its mission to protect—not punish—American investors and entrepreneurs

​