The US Supreme Court Monday heard oral arguments in Axon Enterprise, Inc. V FTC . The court will decide the scope of the Federal Trade Commission‘s (FTC) enforcement powers, whether claims can be reviewed by district courts prior to the completion of agency proceedings and whether the power of courts of appeals to “affirm, enforce, modify, or set aside” the FTC’s cease-and-desist orders impliedly strips district courts of jurisdiction over any constitutional challenges raised against the FTC.

The FTC regulates antitrust violations through cease-and-desist orders pursuant to the Federal Trade Commission Act. The FTC issued one such order to the petitioner, Axon, after an acquisition in 2018. Axon filed proceedings in federal district court claiming that agency proceedings violate its due process rights. The complaint was dismissed, and Axon appealed. Axon’s position is that 28 U.S.C § 1331 encompasses constitutional challenges to agency structures, making the FTC Act unnecessary. The FTC argues that Congress demonstrates intent for the act to not be circumvented by § 1331 through the FTC Act’s statutory review provisions.

In Monday’s oral argument, Paul Clement, on behalf of Axon, stated that the company is “challenging the constitutionality of statutes that insulate agency officials” and violate due process rights by “denying access to courts.” Moreover, Axon argues that the FTC lacks expertise in constitutional issues and acts outside of its scope of authority.

Malcolm Stewart, for the respondents, rebutted that as a longstanding principle, courts do not intervene in ongoing agency proceedings until it results in a rule or order “that imposes sanctions or determines legal rights or obligations.” Stewart argued that the FTC Act review provisions authorizes courts of appeals to review final commission orders. Moreover, they highlighted that the court has consistently upheld that district courts lack jurisdiction over such issues, arguing that the court should find Axon lacks valid cause of action on the grounds that the “commencement of a commission adjudication is not immediately reviewable”.

This case will be considered in conjunction with Securities and Exchange Commission v. Cochran, which asks similar questions with regards to SEC.