The SEC Repeatedly Denied His Constitutional Rights, Destroying His Career. Now We’re Fighting Back.
- Nicolas Morgan
- Jul 30
- 8 min read
A Full-Court Press for Market Freedom
July 30th, 2025
Dear ICAN Partners,
ICAN’s efforts are growing and gaining momentum as we relentlessly deploy every tool in our arsenal to advance market freedom and investor choice. This month's newsletter highlights the continued work of our multifaceted strategy, including strategic litigation defending everyday entrepreneurs from regulatory overreach, targeted amicus briefs that protect constitutional rights, and direct advocacy challenging outdated rules that prevent everyday Americans from accessing investment opportunities.
Ray Lucia's story, which we share below, serves as a stark reminder of what's at stake when regulatory agencies can destroy careers using unconstitutional processes. His 13-year ordeal illustrates the coercive nature of SEC administrative proceedings, which the Supreme Court has now repeatedly criticized—thanks in large part to Ray’s willingness to fight, which paved the way for others to do the same. Because of a Supreme Court decision bearing his name, you may be familiar with part of Ray’s saga, but you will find it hard to believe the parts of that saga you and most everyone else have never heard, involving multiple layers of unconstitutional violations and years of byzantine barriers to justice.
Now we are helping Ray fight one more SEC injustice: a professional bar that only ends when the SEC says it does, even though his “right to apply for reentry” began seven years ago. The SEC’s process for lifting bars is full of Catch-22 requirements, procedural traps for the unwary, and other impediments that make the right to apply for reentry “illusory” in the words of one former SEC Commissioner. We are fighting to change that.
When regulatory agencies can destroy careers using unconstitutional processes–even careers of people like Ray who prevail in the Supreme Court–no entrepreneur or investor is safe.
That is why we are proud to represent Mr. Lucia in his request to the SEC to lift the “three-year industry bar” he didn’t realize would actually amount to a “forever bar”. Without the generous support of our donors, stories like Mr. Lucia’s would remain buried in bureaucratic obscurity. Your contributions enable us to shine a light on regulatory overreach and fight for systemic change that protects everyone—not just those with unlimited legal budgets.
Like any effective full-court press, our strategy requires focus, coordination, and relentless execution across multiple fronts. Together, we're not just defending individuals—we're defending the principles that make American markets the most dynamic in the world.
In gratitude,
Nick Morgan
Founder and President of ICAN
From Supreme Court Victory to Settlement Trap: ICAN Helps Raymond Lucia Fight an Unfair “Forever Bar”
ICAN is proud to be representing Raymond Lucia in his motion to lift a “forever bar” imposed against him by the SEC.
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.
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. As I mentioned at the top of the letter, if Mr. Lucia’s name rings a bell, it’s because, before he was forced to settle with the SEC, he stood up and fought his way to a victory in the Supreme Court. But on his path before and after that victory, Mr. Lucia has encountered a federal agency throwing every arbitrary, capricious, and unconstitutional obstacle imaginable in his direction.
Beginning in 2012, an administrative law judge (“ALJ”) employed by the SEC presided over a hearing to determine whether the SEC’s allegations against Mr. Lucia 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 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. Mr. Lucia 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 would later repudiate 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.
In 2020, after years of court battles and legal bills, Mr. Lucia settled with the SEC, rather than pursuing yet another round of appeals or facing an administrative hearing presided over by yet another SEC-employed ALJ. This settlement included, among other things, an industry bar with the right to apply for reentry after three years. In an unprecedented move, the SEC agreed to backdate the start date for Ray’s 3-year period to 2015, so that it had already run by the time of the settlement.
But, even that settlement did not provide relief to Mr. Lucia. Five years after he settled with the SEC, and seven years after his reentry period had run, the bars remain in place, keeping Mr. Lucia from pursuing a livelihood.
This is where ICAN enters Ray’s story.
While Ray Lucia’s legal win in the Supreme Court was historic, the personal and professional toll was devastating.
He has paid the civil fine. He has complied with every term of that settlement. And yet, because the agency requires him to find a sponsor to even apply for reentry—a sponsor no one will provide because of the taint caused by the SEC’s own press releases—he remains permanently shut out.
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, as he now faces trying to care for his wife, who is dealing with a serious illness.
Had Mr. Lucia been afforded the constitutional rights the courts have now affirmed in cases like Cochran v. SEC and SEC v. Jarkesy, he could have presented his full defense to an impartial judge and jury. Instead, the SEC used its own flawed forum to end his career—and continues to block his return, even after conceding its original process was unlawful.
At ICAN, we believe it’s time to rally behind Mr. Lucia once again.
He stood up to the SEC when it mattered most, and his courage helped ensure the SEC acted within its constitutional boundaries. Now, we are proud to stand with him.
Because what happened to Ray Lucia should never happen to anyone: a man ravaged by his government refusing to act within constitutional limits should not face arbitrary and unconstitutional bureaucracy forever.
The fight isn’t over. But with your support, neither is his.
If there’s any motion to read in full, it’s this one.
If Sisyphus and Kafka had a baby, it would be Ray Lucia’s “Forever Bar” story. Read our full motion here, filed earlier this week.
Amicus Win: 11th Circuit Strikes Down the SEC’s Massively Intrusive Consolidated Audit Trail Database
In a major victory for investor privacy and regulatory accountability, the Eleventh Circuit struck down the SEC’s funding mechanism for the Consolidated Audit Trail (CAT)—a system the ACLU has described as “the largest government database of investor and transaction information.”
ICAN was proud to join an amicus brief with the Cato Institute supporting the challenge brought by the American Securities Association and Citadel Securities. The court ruled that the SEC’s attempt to offload the full cost of the CAT onto broker-dealers was arbitrary and capricious—invalidating the funding rule and pausing the system’s expansion.
While the decision avoided the constitutional questions raised in our brief, the court’s reasoning still reinforces ICAN’s central concern: the CAT has operated without proper legal authority, and at great cost to privacy and accountability. As we warned in our filing, “The CAT system represents a radically new form of surveillance that implicates both Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights.”
That position was echoed by the Wall Street Journal editorial board on Monday evening, which called the CAT “a classic example of government overreach that the Constitution intended to prevent.” The editorial also highlighted what our brief made plain: Congress never explicitly authorized this regime.
This decision marks a meaningful step in the larger fight to restore constitutional limits on agency power. Importantly, all three judges on the Eleventh Circuit panel—including appointees from the Obama, Trump, and Biden administrations—agreed that the SEC’s so-called “fees” to fund the CAT were arbitrary and capricious- violating the Administrative Procedure Act. This ruling underscores why litigation remains the most effective tool to rein in an agency that repeatedly pushes the boundaries of its power, betting that its deep resources and opaque processes will wear down challengers.
ICAN exists to meet that challenge head-on—and victories like this continue to prove the strategy works.
ICAN on Substack: What Congress Gets Right—and Wrong—About Accredited Investor Reform
ICAN is expanding our advocacy efforts through our new Substack channel, Unchained Markets. Our latest article breaks down three bipartisan bills that could finally modernize the accredited investor rule:
H.R. 3339 – Equal Opportunity for All Investors Act
H.R. 3394 – Fair Investment Opportunities for Professional Experts Act
S. 5139 – Empowering Main Street in America Act
We compare what each bill does, where they fall short, and what reforms are truly needed to open private markets to more Americans based on knowledge—not just wealth. The SEC has stalled. Congress has a chance to lead.
Thanks To Your Support
None of ICAN’s growing portfolio of work would be possible without the continued generosity and engagement of our network of valued partners. As we look ahead, ICAN remains committed to confronting regulatory overreach with bold, strategic litigation that defends the rights of entrepreneurs and investors.
If you'd like to support our efforts, please consider:
Making a tax-deductible donation to help us take on more cases
Sharing this newsletter with others interested in SEC reform
Connecting us with potential clients facing SEC overreach
Together, we can build a financial system that works for everyone and advances the American economy. Thank you for your partnership in this vital work.
Comments