Delaware Supreme Court Rejects Jarkesy-Based Jury Trial Challenge to State Administrative Enforcement Proceeding
On July 16, the Delaware Supreme Court held that defendants facing securities fraud and registration claims in administrative proceedings brought by the Delaware Investor Protection Unit are not entitled to a jury trial under the Delaware Constitution, distinguishing the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in SEC v. Jarkesy. Applying its recently adopted Blue Beach Bungalows framework, the court concluded that the state statutory claims are not sufficiently analogous to common-law actions historically tried before a jury, despite the availability of monetary penalties.
The decision underscores that jury-trial challenges to state administrative enforcement actions will turn on the text and history of each state’s constitution and statutory scheme, rather than Jarkesy alone. With similar challenges pending in other jurisdictions, including Arizona, the ruling provides important guidance for regulators and litigants assessing the continued viability of administrative enforcement proceedings seeking civil penalties. Click here to read the full blog post.
Ninth Circuit Vacates Insider Trading Conviction Over Court’s Failure to Investigate Juror Bias
On April 21, 2026, a Ninth Circuit panel vacated an insider trading conviction in United States v. Bolandian, holding that the trial court failed to properly investigate a juror who admitted he was “not sure” he could remain impartial. The case involved a Los Angeles trader accused of profiting from confidential merger tips, resulting in a conviction and 24-month sentence. But on appeal, the court found plain error in allowing the uncertain juror—who ultimately served as foreperson—to remain without further inquiry. Emphasizing the court’s independent duty to ensure juror impartiality, the decision underscores that even without a defense objection, unresolved bias concerns can mandate a new trial—offering both a cautionary note and a safeguard for defense counsel.
