6th Cir.

Smith v. Securities and Exchange Commission

June 16, 2026 ·24-3907 ·Published ·Readler · By Aisha Johnson

The Sixth Circuit denied a petition for review challenging the Securities and Exchange Commission's sanctions against a securities broker. The court held that the petitioner failed to exhaust his constitutional arguments before the agency, barring judicial review of those claims.

Listen to this decision 0:00 / 1:18

Background

Eric Smith, the chairman and CEO of Consulting Services Support Corporation, managed a FINRA-registered broker-dealer subsidiary without registering with FINRA himself. FINRA sanctioned Smith for fraud and ordered restitution, a decision affirmed by the SEC. Smith petitioned for review, arguing FINRA lacked jurisdiction and that the proceedings violated his Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial.

The court’s reasoning

The court first addressed Smith’s statutory argument, concluding that FINRA has jurisdiction over persons associated with its members, including those who control a member firm. Regarding Smith’s constitutional claims, the court found he failed to exhaust his arguments before the SEC. The court rejected Smith’s justifications for non-exhaustion, including claims of futility and intervening change in law, noting the SEC had the competence to adjudicate the issues and could have provided a remedy by vacating sanctions.

As Smith never raised this issue before the SEC, we are statutorily barred from resolving the issue.

15 U.S.C. § 78y(c)(1)

What it means going forward

The decision reinforces the strict exhaustion requirements for challenging SEC and FINRA proceedings in federal court and confirms FINRA’s authority over non-member individuals who control member firms.