Editing Sarbanes–Oxley Act (section)

==Legal challenges==

A lawsuit (''[[Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board]]'') was filed in 2006 challenging the constitutionality of the PCAOB. The complaint argues that because the PCAOB has regulatory powers over the accounting industry, its officers should be appointed by the President, rather than the SEC.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/PCAOBcomplaint.pdf|work=The Wall Street Journal|title=Complaint: Free Enterprise Fund, et al. v. The Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, et al. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT – Case 1:06CV00217}}</ref> Further, because the law lacks a "severability clause," if part of the law is judged unconstitutional, so is the remainder. If the plaintiff prevails, the U.S. Congress may have to devise a different method of officer appointment. Further, the other parts of the law may be open to revision.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/19/AR2008071900106.html|title=Washington Post|newspaper=Washington Post|date=2008-07-20|access-date=August 27, 2010}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=121146830|title=NPR-Supreme Court Considers Sarbanes-Oxley Board|publisher=Npr.org|date=2009-12-07|access-date=August 27, 2010}}</ref>
The lawsuit was dismissed from a District Court; the decision was upheld by the Court of Appeals on August 22, 2008.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://pcaobus.org/News/Releases/Pages/08222008_PCAOBStatement.aspx|title=PCAOB Statement on Favorable Decision in Free Enterprise Fund v. PCAOB|website=pcaobus.org}}</ref> Judge Kavanaugh, in his dissent, argued strongly against the constitutionality of the law.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.nysun.com/editorials/sell-sarbanes-oxley/84635/|title=NY Sun Editorial|publisher=Nysun.com|access-date=August 27, 2010}}</ref> On May 18, 2009, the United States Supreme Court agreed to hear this case.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Supreme-Court-weighs-validity-apf-3124646921.html?x=0|title=Supreme Court weighs validity of anti-fraud law – Yahoo! Finance|date=13 December 2009|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091213021755/http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Supreme-Court-weighs-validity-apf-3124646921.html?x=0|archive-date=13 December 2009}}</ref> On December 7, 2009, it heard the oral arguments.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/08-861.pdf|title=12_7_09 Oral Argument Transcript|publisher=Supremecourtus.gov|access-date=August 27, 2010|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091221222311/http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/08-861.pdf|archive-date=December 21, 2009}}</ref> On June 28, 2010, the United States Supreme Court unanimously turned away a broad challenge to the law, but ruled 5–4 that a section related to appointments violates the Constitution's separation of powers mandate. The act remains "fully operative as a law" pending a process correction.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/29/business/29accounting.html?dbk|title=Supreme Court Upholds Accounting Board|first1=Floyd|last1=Norris|first2=Adam|last2=Liptak|date=June 28, 2010|work=The New York Times}}</ref>

In its March 4, 2014 ''Lawson v. FMR LLC'' decision the United States Supreme Court rejected a narrow interpretation of the SOX whistleblower protection and instead held that the anti-retaliation protection that the Sarbanes–Oxley Act of 2002 provided to whistleblowers applies also to employees of a public company's private contractors and subcontractors, including the attorneys and accountants who prepare the SEC filings of public companies.<ref>{{cite web|last1=Rapp|first1=Geoffrey|title=Opinion analysis: Coverage of SOX whistleblower protection is no longer Up in the Air|url=http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/03/opinion-analysis-coverage-of-sox-whistleblower-protection-is-no-longer-up-in-the-aira/|publisher=SCOTUSblog|access-date=June 24, 2014|date=2014-03-05}}</ref> Subsequent interpretations of Lawson, however, suggest that the disclosures of a contractor's employee are protected only if those disclosures pertain to fraud perpetrated by a publicly traded company, as opposed to wrongdoing by a private contractor.

In its February 25, 2015 ''[[Yates v. United States (2015)|Yates v. United States]]'' decision the Supreme Court of the United States sided with Yates by reversing the previous judgement, with a plurality of the justices reading the Act to cover "only objects one can use to record or preserve information, not all objects in the physical world". Justice [[Samuel Alito]] concurred in the judgment and noted that the statute's nouns and verbs only applies to filekeeping and not fish.<ref>[http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/02/25/the_supreme_court_cited_dr_seuss_in_its_fish_case.html Supreme Court Fish Case: Alito Saves the Day, Kagan Cites Dr. Seuss]. Retrieved 27 February 2015.</ref>

Forty percent of the rioters of the [[2021 United States Capitol attack|January 6, 2021 U.S. Capitol attack]] were charged with violating the Sarbanes–Oxley Act of 2002.<ref>{{Cite news|title=Analysis {{!}} What crime might Trump have committed on Jan. 6? Liz Cheney points to one.|language=en-US|newspaper=Washington Post|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/12/14/liz-cheney-trump-crime/|access-date=2021-12-30|issn=0190-8286}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|date=2021-12-29|title=Feds using Enron-era law to seek longer sentences for leaders of the Jan. 6 MAGA mob: report|url=https://www.rawstory.com/sarbanes-oxley-act-capitol-riot/|access-date=2021-12-30|website=Raw Story|language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|date=2021-12-14|title=Government Wins Key Ruling on Issue Affecting Hundreds of Capitol Riot Cases|url=https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/government-wins-key-ruling-issue-affecting-hundreds-capitol-riot-cases-0|access-date=2021-12-30|website=Lawfare|language=en}}</ref> On June 28, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a [[Fischer v. United States|ruling]] that found obstruction under the law was only intended to apply to more limited circumstances involving forms of evidence tampering and couldn't be used for broader prosecutions.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-rules-jan-6-rioter-challenging-obstruction-char-rcna155902|title=Supreme Court rules for Jan. 6 rioter challenging obstruction charge|first1=Lawrence|last1=Hurley|first2=Ryan J.|last2=Reily|publisher=NBC News|date=June 28, 2024|accessdate=June 28, 2024}}</ref> The ruling was 6-3, with Justice [[Amy Coney Barrett]] dissenting and Justice [[Ketanji Brown Jackson]] concurring with the majority.<ref>{{cite web | url=https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/textual-backflips-barrett-calls-out-majority-for-finding-any-way-to-narrow-law-used-in-hundreds-of-jan-6-cases/ | title='Textual backflips': Supreme Court rules 6-3 to narrowing of law in Jan. 6 obstruction case | date=June 28, 2024 }}</ref>