Case Citator › Securities & Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corp.

Securities & Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corp.

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Limited by some courts
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Citation
332 U.S. 194
Decided
Confirmed treatments
2
Flagged citations read
53 of 53
Citing cases (total)
53
Treatment dates
2020
Limited by some courts
At least one reviewed court has limited this case’s holding to narrower facts or a narrower rule. No reviewed court has overruled it. Securities & Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corp. is limited by a futility exception to its remand rule. The Seventh and Second Circuits held that a court may affirm an agency decision despite an inadequate stated reason when remand could not change the result.
More on how this was screened

Chenery's general rule that courts review agency action on the grounds the agency gave remains in force. All 53 flagged citations have been read; the two confirmed adverse treatments are listed below.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

53 later cases cite Securities & Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corp.; 53 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Securities & Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corp.?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Limited

  • The Seventh Circuit held that Chenery's remand rule does not require a futile remand when the agency's result is obvious.

    Salim v. Barr · Seventh Circuit · filed

    As a general matter, we cannot affirm an agency’s decision on grounds not articulated by the agency. SEC v. Chenery Corp., 332 U.S. 194, 196–97 (1947). But we will not remand an agency’s decision where doing so would be futile because the result is obvious.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • The Second Circuit applied a futility exception to Chenery and affirmed a removal order because the agency's separate, valid finding independently required removal.

    Awawda v. Barr · Second Circuit · filed

    Although a determination by this Court that the BIA's reasoning was "inadequate or improper" would typically render us "powerless to affirm the administrative action" on an alternate ground, SEC v. Chenery Corp., 332 U.S. 194, 196 (1947), we may do so where remand would be "futile," Manzur v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 494 F.3d 281, 289 (2d Cir. 2007). ... We thus affirm his removal order on that basis.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Securities & Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corp. and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace