EDITORIAL: Supreme Court takes a break — but not for long

The U.S. Supreme Court is on hiatus until the first Monday of October. The docket this fall will offer the justices plenty of chances to again reinvigorate a host of vital constitutional principles.

The justices have already accepted more than 15 cases for their next term. They will take dozens more in the coming months. The pending cases touch on a wide range of subjects, including the administrative state, civil forfeiture and public records. For instance:

— In SEC v. Jarkesy, the justices will determine whether the Security Exchange Commission can serve as prosecutor, judge and jury when it brings enforcement actions. The case involves a man accused of securities fraud who was denied a trial in federal court and instead forced into an agency administrative proceeding. A federal appeals court ruled that the SEC had overstepped its authority and that the agency’s in-house judges were unconstitutionally shielded from accountability.

— In Consumer Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services, the court will hear a challenge to the constitutionality of the former, which Congress created in 2010 following the financial crisis. To shield the agency from political pressure, Democrats walled off its funding and mandated that the director could be removed “only for cause.” In other words, they created an agency that has the power to impose massive fines, but which isn’t held to traditional accountability safeguards. This raises separation-of-powers concerns.

— In Culley v. Marshall, the court wades into the injustice known as civil asset forfeiture. Halima Tariffa Culley’s son was pulled over by police while driving her vehicle. The authorities seized the car after finding marijuana and drug paraphernalia and later filed a civil forfeiture action against the vehicle. Nearly two years later, an Alabama court ordered the vehicle returned after finding for Ms. Culley under the state’s innocent owner defense. Ms. Culley sued, arguing that her rights were violated because she was denied a prompt hearing on the merits of the forfeiture action. This case offers the justices an opportunity to rein in forfeiture abuses.

— In O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier, the justices will hear a case involving a couple that often posted critical comments on the social media pages of local school board members. The elected officials deleted many of the comments and eventually blocked the couple. The Garniers then sued, claiming that the social media pages were a public forum created by government officials. A decision against the couple might open the door for politicians to skirt records laws by using private devices or social media pages to conduct government business.

The court has done an excellent job of late ensuring that the executive branch and Congress adhere to constitutional limits. We look forward to more of the same this fall.