SCOTUSfiles

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

_________________

Nos. 21–86 and 21–1239

_________________

AXON ENTERPRISE, INC., PETITIONER

21–86 v.

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, et al.

on writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, et al., PETITIONERS

21–1239 v.

MICHELLE COCHRAN

on writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the fifth circuit

 Justice Thomas, concurring.

 I join the Court’s opinion in full because it correctly applies precedent to determine that Axon Enterprise’s and Michelle Cochran’s structural constitutional claims need not be channeled through the administrative review schemes at issue. I write separately, however, because I have grave doubts about the constitutional propriety of Congress vesting administrative agencies with primary authority to adjudicate core private rights with only deferential judicial review on the back end.

I

A

 The Court correctly notes that precedent allows Congress to replace Article III district courts with “an alternative  scheme of review,” as it did in the provisions of the Securities Exchange Act and the Federal Trade Commission Act at issue here. Ante, at 7; see 15 U. S. C. §§45(c) and 78y(a). Under such schemes, administrative agencies may impose orders and penalties on private parties; adjudicate them before agency administrative law judges (ALJs); and only then be subjected to deferential review by an Article III court. As the Court puts it, “[t]he agency effectively fills in for the district court, with the court of appeals providing judicial review.” Ante, at 7. That Article III review is sharply limited. For example, under the administrative review schemes at issue here, the reviewing court must treat agency findings of fact as “conclusive” so long as they are “supported by substantial evidence,” §78y(a)(4); see §45(c) (“if supported by evidence”), a highly deferential standard of review.1 The reviewing court also cannot take its own evidence—it can only remand the case to the agency for further proceedings. See §§45(c) and 78y(a)(5).

 This mixed system—primary adjudication by an executive agency subject to only limited Article III review—is unlike the system that prevailed for the first century of our Nation’s existence. During that period, judicial review was “all-or-nothing”; “either a court had authority to review administrative action or not, and if it did, it decided the whole case.” T. Merrill, Article III, Agency Adjudication, and the Origins of the Appellate Review Model of Administrative Law, 111 Colum. L. Rev. 939, 944, 952 (2011) (Merrill). This all-or-nothing model rested on a conceptual distinction  between core private rights, on the one hand, and mere public rights and governmental privileges, on the other. “Disposition of private rights to life, liberty, and property” was understood to “fal[l] within the core of the judicial power, whereas disposition of public rights [was] not.” Wellness Int’l Network, Ltd. v. Sharif, 575 U. S. 665, 711 (2015) (Thomas, J., dissenting). Thus, “[t]he measure of judicial involvement was private right. In particular, the extent to which the judiciary reviewed actions and legal determinations of the executive depended on private right.” J. Harrison, Jurisdiction, Congressional Power, and Constitutional Remedies, 86 Geo. L. J. 2513, 2516 (1998) (footnote omitted).2 Even today, the distinction “between ‘public rights’ and ‘private rights’ ” continues to inform this Court’s understanding of “Article III judicial power.” Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC, 584 U. S. ___, ___ (2018) (slip op., at 6).

 As I have explained, when private rights are at stake, full Article III adjudication is likely required. Private rights encompass “the three ‘absolute’ rights,” life, liberty, and property, “so called because they ‘appertain and belong to particular men merely as individuals,’ not ‘to them as members of society or standing in various relations to each other’—that is, not dependent upon the will of the government.” Wellness Int’l Network, 575 U. S., at 713–714 (dissenting opinion) (quoting 1 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 119 (1765); alterations omitted).  Such rights could be adjudicated and divested only by Article III courts. See 575 U. S., at 713 (“[A]n exercise of the judicial power is required ‘when the government wants to act authoritatively upon core private rights that had vested in a particular individual’ ” (quoting C. Nelson, Adjudication in the Political Branches, 107 Colum. L. Rev. 559, 569 (2007) (Nelson); alteration omitted)); see also J. Mascott, Constitutionally Conforming Agency Adjudication, 2 Loyola U. Chi. J. Reg. Compliance 22, 45 (2017) (Mascott) (“Cases involving . . . deprivations or transfers of life, liberty, or property constitute a ‘core’ of cases that . . . must be resolved by Article III courts—not executive adjudicators ‘dressed up as courts’ ”).

 A different regime prevailed for public rights and privileges. Unlike “the private unalienable rights of each individual,” Lansing v. Smith, 4 Wend. 9, 21 (N. Y. 1829), public rights “belon[g] to the people at large,” and governmental privileges are “created purely for reasons of public policy and ha[ve] no counterpart in the Lockean state of nature.” Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 574 U. S. 318, 344, n. 2 (2015) (Thomas, J., dissenting) (internal quotation marks omitted). It was understood at the founding that such governmental privileges (some of which we today call Government benefits and entitlements) “could be taken away without judicial process.” Sessions v. Dimaya, 584 U. S. ___, ___ (2018) (Thomas, J., dissenting) (slip op., at 9); see also Mascott 25. Thus, “the legislative and executive branches may dispose of public rights [and privileges] at will—including through non-Article III adjudications.” Wellness Int’l Network, 575 U. S., at 713 (Thomas, J., dissenting).

B

 The requirement of plenary Article III adjudication of private rights began to change in the early 20th century. As notions of administrative efficiency came into vogue, courts  were viewed less as guardians of core private rights and more as impediments to expert administrative adjudication. See 20 F. 4th 194, 219 (CA5 2021) (Oldham, J., concurring). After his election in 1904, President Theodore Roosevelt, who “shared the progressive faith in administrative expertise,” sought to “rei[n] in judicial review” of administrative action. Merrill 955. This progressive sentiment led to the Hepburn Act, 34 Stat. 584, which was designed to curb judicial review of Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) rate orders. Prior to the Hepburn Act, the ICC was required to file a bill of equity in court to obtain judicial enforcement of its rate orders. Merrill 955. But, the Hepburn Act provided that the ICC’s “orders were to be self-executing thirty days after they became final, unless ‘suspended or set aside by a court of competent jurisdiction’ ”—almost inverting the traditional system. Ibid. (quoting 34 Stat. 589). While the Act was silent on the standard of review, this Court understood “the implied threat that if [it] did not back off from its aggressive review practices, more drastic action would be in the offing.” Merrill 959.

 Accordingly, the Court began to develop what is now known as the “appellate review model.” See id., at 963–965. While maintaining that the courts must decide “all relevant questions of constitutional power or right” and other questions of law, ICC v. Illinois Central R. Co., 215 U. S. 452, 470 (1910), the Court held that an ICC order “supported by evidence” must be “accepted as final,” ICC v. Union Pacific R. Co., 222 U. S. 541, 547 (1912). Following the Court’s lead, Congress codified the appellate review model in the two statutes at issue here. The Federal Trade Commission Act provided that “the findings of the commission as to the facts, if supported by testimony, shall in like manner be conclusive” in federal court. 38 Stat. 720 (codified, as amended, at 15 U. S. C. §45(c)). The Securities Exchange Act of 1934 likewise provided that the SEC’s findings “shall  be conclusive” “if supported by substantial evidence.” 48 Stat. 902 (codified, as amended, at 15 U. S. C. §78y).

 In the 1930s, this Court upheld the constitutionality of the appellate review model against arguments that it violated the separation of powers and Seventh Amendment. First, in Crowell v. Benson, 285 U. S. 22 (1932), the Court examined the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, which authorized administrative agencies to adjudicate workers’ compensation claims against private parties. The Court acknowledged that the case was “one of private right,” id., at 51, but held that Congress had the authority to place primary factfinding authority in an administrative agency, id., at 54. It reasoned that such a scheme did not violate Article III because “Congress has considerable power to structure [judicial] proceedings and to regulate the mechanisms that courts use to ascertain facts.” Nelson 600.

 Next, in NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 301 U. S. 1 (1937), the Court examined the National Labor Relations Act’s judicial review provisions, which required an Article III court to accept the National Labor Relations Board’s factual findings so long as they were “supported by evidence” in the administrative record. 49 Stat. 454. The Court held that this arrangement did not violate the Seventh Amendment, which provides that “[i]n Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved.” The Court reasoned that, “because claims seeking statutory remedies for violations of the Act were ‘statutory proceedings’ that were ‘unknown to the common law,’ they were not ‘suits at common law’ within the meaning of the Seventh Amendment.” Nelson 602 (quoting Jones & Laughlin, 301 U. S., at 48; alterations omitted). These cases solidified administrative agencies’ authority “to act as factfinding adjuncts to the fed eral judiciary on a broad array of statutory claims, including claims for monetary relief.” Nelson 602.3

II

 As I have previously explained, “[b]ecause federal administrative agencies are part of the Executive Branch, it is not clear that they have power to adjudicate claims involving core private rights.” B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Industries, Inc., 575 U. S. 138, 171 (2015) (dissenting opinion). The “appellate review model” of agency adjudication thus raises serious constitutional concerns. It may violate the separation of powers by placing adjudicatory authority over core private rights—a judicial rather than executive power—within the authority of Article II agencies. See ibid. (“To the extent that administrative agencies could, consistent with the Constitution, function as courts, they might only be able to do so with respect to claims involving public or quasi-private rights”). It may violate Article III by compelling the Judiciary to defer to administrative agencies regarding matters within the core of the Judicial Vesting Clause. See P. Hamburger, Is Administrative Law Unlawful? 297 (2014) (Hamburger) (explaining that, traditionally, “even at the behest of Congress, the judges could not defer to the executive record or the facts supposedly established by it, lest they abandon their office of independent judgment and the office of juries to decide the  facts”). And, it may violate due process by empowering entities that are not courts of competent jurisdiction to deprive citizens of core private rights. See B&B Hardware, 575 U. S., at 164 (Thomas, J., dissenting) (“[H]owever broadly ‘court of competent jurisdiction’ was defined, it would require quite a leap to say that the concept encompasses administrative agencies, which were recognized as categorically different from courts” (alteration omitted)); see also Hamburger 256 (“The guarantee of due process . . . . bars the government from holding subjects to account outside courts and their processes”). Finally, the appellate review model may run afoul of the Seventh Amendment by allowing an administrative agency to adjudicate what may be core private rights without a jury. See Tull v. United States, 481 U. S. 412, 417 (1987) (explaining that the Seventh Amendment ensures the right to a jury trial for all adjudications “analogous to ‘Suits at common law’ ”).

 It is no answer that an Article III court may eventually review the agency order and its factual findings under a deferential standard of review. In fact, there seems to be no basis for treating factfinding differently from deciding questions of law. Both are at the core of judicial power, as Article III itself acknowledges. See §2, cl. 2 (providing that this Court’s appellate jurisdiction is “both as to Law and Fact”); see also Stern v. Marshall, 564 U. S. 462, 484 (2011). For much of the Nation’s history, it was understood that Article III precluded “the political branches” from exercising “power over the determination of individualized adjudicative facts when core private rights were at stake.” Nelson 593 (emphasis deleted); see also Hamburger 297. It is obvious that Article III “would not be satisfied if Congress provided for judicial review but ordered the courts to affirm the agency no matter what.” G. Lawson, The Rise and Rise of the Administrative State, 107 Harv. L. Rev. 1231, 1247 (1994) (Lawson). And, “[t]here is no reason to think that it is any different if Congress instead simply orders courts to  put a thumb (or perhaps two forearms) on the agency’s side of the scale.” Id., at 1247–1248. Such a regime “allows a mere party to supplant a jury as the court’s fact finder,” Hamburger 319, and it “effectively vest[s] the judicial power either in the agency or in Congress,” Lawson 1247. It thus appears likely that, “when agency adjudicators stray outside the proper limits of executive adjudication such as by depriving individuals of vested property rights, they must not serve even as fact-finders subject to judicial deference.” Mascott 25 (footnote omitted).

 In sum, whether any form of administrative adjudication is constitutionally permissible likely turns on the nature of the right in question. If private rights are at stake, the Constitution likely requires plenary Article III adjudication. Conversely, if privileges or public rights are at stake, Congress likely can foreclose judicial review at will.

III

 The rights at issue in these cases appear to be core private rights that must be adjudicated by Article III courts. For one, Axon and Cochran face the threat of significant monetary fines. Indeed, in the first round of proceedings, the SEC imposed a $22,500 civil penalty on Cochran. And, the FTC seeks to require Axon to transfer intellectual property to another entity. These types of penalties and orders implicate the core private right to property. See Lawson 1247 (“imposition of a civil penalty or fine” implicates core Article III power); see also Nelson 626–627. Accordingly, they likely must be adjudicated by Article III courts and juries. See Tull, 481 U. S., at 422 (“A civil penalty was a type of remedy at common law that could only be enforced in courts of law”); accord, id., at 427–428 (Scalia, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). Naturally, merely labeling the deprivation of a core private right a “civil penalty” cannot allow Congress and agencies to circumvent constitutional requirements. Cf. Granfinanciera, S. A. v. Nordberg, 492 U. S. 33, 61 (1989) (“Congress cannot eliminate a party’s Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial merely by relabeling the cause of action to which it attaches and placing exclusive jurisdiction in an administrative agency or a specialized court of equity”). By permitting administrative agencies to adjudicate what may be core private rights, the administrative review schemes here raise serious constitutional issues.

*  *  *

 Because the Court today correctly holds that Axon’s and Cochran’s claims are not precluded by the review-channeling provisions at issue here, I join its opinion in full. In an appropriate case, we should consider whether such schemes and the appellate review model they embody are constitutional methods for the adjudication of private rights.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

_________________

Nos. 21–86 and 21–1239

_________________

AXON ENTERPRISE, INC., PETITIONER

21–86 v.

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, et al.

on writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, et al., PETITIONERS

21–1239 v.

MICHELLE COCHRAN

on writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the fifth circuit

 Justice Gorsuch, concurring in judgment.

 I agree with the Court that Michelle Cochran and Axon Enterprise are entitled to their day in court. But to my mind the reason why has nothing to do with the “Thunder Basin factors.” Ante, at 8. Instead, it follows directly from 28 U. S. C. §1331.

I

 The Constitution vests in Congress the power to create and organize lower federal courts. See Art. I, §8, cl. 9; Art. III, §1; Sheldon v. Sill, 49 U. S. 441, 449 (1850). Exercising that power, for the last 150 years Congress has afforded lower federal courts jurisdiction to hear civil disputes arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States. Act of Mar. 3, 1875, ch. 137, §1, 18 Stat. 470; see also Act of Dec. 1, 1980, 94 Stat. 2369 (eliminating amount- in-controversy requirement). Today, §1331 provides that “district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” Not may have jurisdiction, but shall. Not some civil actions arising under federal law, but all. The statute is as clear as statutes get, and everyone agrees it encompasses the claims Ms. Cochran and Axon seek to pursue. See ante, at 7. End of case, right?

 Not so fast. As the Court sees it, Ms. Cochran, Axon, and others like them must satisfy not only §1331. They must also satisfy a judge-made, multi-factor balancing test. One assembled from remarks scattered here and there across the pages of Thunder Basin Coal Co. v. Reich, 510 U. S. 200 (1994). And one, we are told, designed to ferret out whether the legislators who adopted the Federal Trade Commission Act in 1914 and the Securities Exchange Act in 1934 harbored an “implici[t]” wish to “ous[t]” district courts of jurisdiction in favor of agency proceedings. Ante, at 7. So, yes, the law on the books may promise you the right to be heard in a court of law. But sometimes that doesn’t count for much. Sometimes judges can shunt you to an agency instead—so long as a test we have fabricated suggests to us that is what Congress really wanted.

 There are many problems with the Thunder Basin project, but start with its sheer incoherence. At the outset, Thunder Basin requires litigants and courts to ask whether a “ ‘comprehensive review process’ ” exists. Ante, at 7. What does that mean? It seems a review process will “typically” qualify as “comprehensive” when “review in a court of appeals follow[s] the agency’s own review.” Ibid. But “typically” does not mean “necessarily.” Ibid. Just because an agency can hear a case does not mean a district court cannot. To decide whether a particular case belongs in an agency rather than a court, you must consult three further “considerations . . . commonly known now as the Thunder Basin factors.” Ante, at 7–8.

  That’s where the magic happens. The Thunder Basin factors require assessing whether: (1) “precluding district court jurisdiction” would “foreclose all meaningful judicial review”; (2) the plaintiff ’s claims are “wholly collateral” to the statutory review scheme; and (3) the claims are “outside the agency’s expertise.” Ante, at 8 (internal quotation marks omitted); see generally 510 U. S., at 207–215. Harnessing the energy of these various factors, we are assured, will allow anyone to detect a latent congressional intent to oust district courts of their jurisdiction in any given case. See ante, at 8–10.

 Just see how easy it is. To apply the first factor, all you have to do is ask a few more questions. They include whether the plaintiff could “eventually” obtain review in some federal court; whether that court’s review “would come too late to be meaningful”; and (maybe) how analogous the plaintiff ’s plea for immediate review is to a governmental official’s plea for qualified immunity. Ante, at 12–14. If this is starting to seem more confounding than clarifying, do not worry. The first factor is the “least straightforward” anyway. Ante, at 11. When it comes to the second factor, you only need to evaluate the “collateralism” of the plaintiff ’s claim. Ante, at 14. Apparently, that “requires considering the nature of the claim, not the status (pending or not) of an agency proceeding.” Ante, at 16. The third factor is just one easy question too, focused on whether the plaintiff ’s claim is “intertwined with or embedded in matters on which the [agency is] expert.” Ante, at 17. If that does not help, try asking if the claim is “entangled” with the agency’s expertise, ibid., or if the agency can bring to bear “distinctive knowledge,” ante, at 8.

 Even after you make it through these twists and turns, a final surprise sometimes awaits. The Court holds that all three Thunder Basin factors favor Ms. Cochran and Axon, so their cases may proceed in district court. Ante, at 17–18.  But what happens when the factors point in different directions, some in favor and others against immediate judicial review? No one knows. You get to guess.1

II

 Putting aside these problems with the Thunder Basin project serves only to expose others. We are told that consulting so many disparate factors is essential if we are to divine and give effect to “implici[t]” congressional “inten[tions]” to divest district courts of jurisdiction in favor of certain agency proceedings. Ante, at 7 (internal quotation marks omitted). But what gives courts authority to  engage in this business of jurisdiction-stripping-by- implication?

 The answer, of course, is nothing. Under our Constitution, “Congress, and not the Judiciary, defines the scope of federal jurisdiction.” New Orleans Public Service, Inc. v. Council of City of New Orleans, 491 U. S. 350, 359 (1989). Federal courts “have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given.” Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264, 404 (1821) (Marshall, C. J., for the Court). That is why we have called it the “true rule” that “statutes clearly defining the jurisdiction of the courts . . . must control . . . in the absence of subsequent legislation equally express.” Rosencrans v. United States, 165 U. S. 257, 262 (1897). And why we have said that “jurisdiction conferred by 28 U. S. C. §1331,” in particular, “should hold firm against mere implication[s]” from other laws. Mims v. Arrow Financial Services, LLC, 565 U. S. 368, 383 (2012) (internal quotation marks omitted).

 Thunder Basin defies these foundational rules. Maybe  worse, it exhibits familiarity with none of them. No one disputes that §1331 represents a valid exercise of Congress’s authority to regulate the jurisdiction of the district courts. No one questions that §1331 permits cases like those before us to proceed. No Member of the Court points to any statute Congress has adopted that speaks otherwise. Under the law, that should be the end of the matter. But under Thunder Basin, courts may refuse individuals their right to a judicial forum based on nothing more than suppositions about “implici[t]” congressional “inten[tions].” Ante, at 7. Divesting jurisdiction by mere implication goes from out-of-bounds to the name of the game. Along the way, this Court arrogates to itself a power to control the jurisdiction of lower federal courts that the Constitution reserves to Congress.

 All to what end? At bottom, Thunder Basin rests on a view that it is sometimes more important to allow agencies to work without the bother of having to answer suits against them than it is to allow individuals their day in court. But when Congress holds that view, it does not ask us to juggle a variety of factors and then guess at the implicit intentions of legislators past. It simply tells us. See, e.g., 12 U. S. C. §1818(i)(1) (“[E]xcept as otherwise provided in this section or under section 1831o or 1831p–1 of this title no court shall have jurisdiction to affect by injunction or otherwise the issuance or enforcement of any notice or order under any such section”); 42 U. S. C. §405(h) (“No action against the United States, the Commissioner of Social Security, or any officer or employee thereof shall be brought under section 1331 or 1346 of title 28 to recover on any claim arising under this subchapter”).2

 III

 There is a better way. Our job is to interpret the laws Congress has adopted. It is a task that “begins with the language of the [relevant] statute[s]” and, when “the statutory language provides a clear answer, it ends there as well.” Hughes Aircraft Co. v. Jacobson, 525 U. S. 432, 438 (1999) (internal quotation marks omitted). Because no one doubts that §1331 vests district courts with jurisdiction to hear these cases, the only question properly before us is whether Congress has actually carved out some exception in some other statute. The government points to two candidates. But the government’s arguments from those laws are so improbable that the Court barely mentions them. I pause to walk through each only to illustrate how these cases should have been resolved.

 In Ms. Cochran’s case, the government directs our attention to §78y(a)(1) of the Exchange Act. That provision says that “[a] person aggrieved by a final order of the Commission . . . may obtain review of the order in the United States Court of Appeals . . . by filing in such court . . . a written petition requesting that the order be modified or set aside in whole or in part.” 15 U. S. C. §78y(a)(1). Plainly, the statute promises jurisdiction in a court of appeals for those  hoping to contest “a final order of the Commission.” But just as plainly, Ms. Cochran does not seek to challenge an SEC final order. Nor could she, because the agency has not entered one in her case. Ms. Cochran does not even seek relief in anticipation of a final agency order. Instead, she seeks to avoid being hauled before an agency that she alleges is unconstitutionally structured. See ante, at 4. That is exactly the kind of “here-and-now injury” this Court has held “can be remedied by a court” without regard to the eventual outcome of agency proceedings. Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 591 U. S. ___, ___ (2020) (internal quotation marks omitted) (slip op., at 10).

 If all that were not enough, there is more. A neighboring statutory provision says that “the rights and remedies” the Exchange Act authorizes “shall be in addition to any and all other rights and remedies that may exist at law or in equity.” §78bb(a)(2). This Court has explained that a “saving clause” of this sort “strongly buttresse[s]” the conclusion that a review provision such as §78y(a)(1) does not preclude “traditional avenues of judicial relief.” Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U. S. 136, 142, 144 (1967). And, of course, one traditional avenue of relief is a suit in district court under §1331 seeking to enjoin unconstitutional conduct. See Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Bd., 561 U. S. 477, 491, n. 2 (2010). Far from barring Ms. Cochran’s path to court, then, the Exchange Act expressly preserves it.

 The story repeats itself when it comes to Axon. The government insists that §5(c) of the FTC Act precludes district courts from entertaining constitutional challenges to the agency’s structure. But §5(c) provides only that parties subject to “an order of the Commission to cease and desist from using any method of competition or act or practice may obtain a review of such order in the court of appeals of the United States.” 15 U. S. C. §45(c). And, here again, we have nothing like that. The FTC has not ordered Axon to  cease and desist from anything. That §5(c) does not foreclose Axon’s case finds reinforcement next door too. Section 5(d) holds that, “[u]pon the filing of the record . . . the jurisdiction of the court of appeals of the United States to affirm, enforce, modify, or set aside orders of the Commission shall be exclusive.” §45(d). So until an administrative record is lodged in the court of appeals—something that hasn’t happened here either—the appellate court’s jurisdiction is not exclusive and a plaintiff like Axon remains free to proceed in district court.

 In both cases, the relevant statutes guide the way. Section 1331 grants district courts the power to hear Ms. Cochran’s and Axon’s claims and no other law takes that power away. Resolving jurisdictional disputes by looking to the terms of the statutes Congress has adopted may hold none of the suspense that comes with a ride on the Thunder Basin roller coaster. But that is as it should be. “Where the statutory language is clear, our sole function . . . is to enforce it according to its terms.” Rake v. Wade, 508 U. S. 464, 471 (1993) (internal quotation marks omitted).3

 IV

 While the Court reaches the right result today, its choice of the wrong path matters. Not just because continuing to apply the Thunder Basin factors leaves the law badly distorted. It also matters because Thunder Basin’s throw-it-in-a-blender approach to jurisdiction imposes serious and needless costs on litigants and lower courts alike.

 Jurisdictional rules, this Court has often said, should be “clear and easy to apply.” Hamer v. Neighborhood Housing Servs. of Chicago, 583 U. S. 17, ___ (2017) (slip op., at 8); see also Sisson v. Ruby, 497 U. S. 358, 364, n. 2 (1990); Foremost Ins. Co. v. Richardson, 457 U. S. 668, 676–677 (1982). For parties, “[c]omplex jurisdictional tests complicate a case, eating up time and money as [they] litigate, not the merits of their claims, but which court is the right court to decide those claims.” Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U. S. 77, 94 (2010). For courts, jurisdictional rules “mark the bounds” of their “ ‘adjudicatory authority.’ ” Boechler v. Commissioner, 596 U. S. ___, ___ (2022) (slip op., at 2). Judges therefore “benefit from straightforward rules under which they can readily assure themselves of their power to hear a case,” Hertz, 559 U. S., at 94, while “adventitious” rules leave them with “almost impossible” tasks to perform that squander their limited resources, Executive Jet Aviation, Inc. v. Cleveland, 409 U. S. 249, 266 (1972).

 There are many words to describe the Thunder Basin factors, but “clear and easy to apply” are not among them. To appreciate the trouble Thunder Basin can generate for litigants and lower courts alike, consider some of the facts of Ms. Cochran’s case that do not find their way into the Court’s opinion.

 A single mother of two and a certified public accountant, Ms. Cochran began looking for part-time work in 2007.  Eventually, she found a position at a small company called The Hall Group. Soon, however, she discovered that the owner, David Hall, was not just abrasive but dishonest. At one point, he even added Ms. Cochran’s name to the firm’s business license without her permission, all to facilitate his idea of rebranding his company as “The Hall Group CPAs.” When Ms. Cochran protested, Mr. Hall offered her a choice: become a nonequity partner with no increase in pay so that he could use the new name or leave the firm. Ms. Cochran chose to quit and put the whole ordeal behind her.

 Or so she thought. Years later, in 2016, Ms. Cochran learned that the SEC had initiated an enforcement proceeding against Mr. Hall, another of his former employees, and herself. The SEC charged Ms. Cochran with violating “Rule 2–02(b)(1) of Regulation S-X and Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rules 13a–1 and 13a–13 thereunder,” as well as “aid[ing] and abett[ing] . . . Rule 2–02(b)(1) violations.” In re Hall, SEC Release No. 3–17228, p. 1 (2017). In English, the SEC alleged that Ms. Cochran had failed to complete auditing checklists, leaving certain sections of certain forms “blank.” Id., at 12–13. The agency brought these charges even though there was “no evidence” that the incomplete paperwork had resulted in any “monetary harm to clients or investors.” Id., at 28.

 The SEC elected to proceed against Ms. Cochran before its own internal tribunal rather than (as it could have) a court of law. The agency assigned the case to one of its hearing officers (an “administrative law judge” or “ALJ”). Reportedly, that ALJ made a practice of warning defendants during settlement discussions that he had “never ruled against the agency’s enforcement division.” J. Eaglesham, SEC Judges’ Fairness Is in Spotlight, Wall St. J., Nov. 23, 2015, p. C6. It seems, though, Ms. Cochran didn’t take the hint. She refused to settle and sought to represent herself in the hearing that followed. It did not go well. Just as her hearing was about to start, her former boss settled his own  case and then turned about to testify against Ms. Cochran. In the end, the ALJ fined Ms. Cochran $22,500 and banned her from practicing before the SEC as an accountant for at least five years.

 Ms. Cochran responded by asking the full Commission to review the ALJ’s decision. Around the same time, this Court held in an unrelated case that the ALJ who presided over Ms. Cochran’s case had been unconstitutionally appointed. See Lucia v. SEC, 585 U. S. ___, ___ (2018) (slip. op., at 2). Ms. Cochran might have thought that would bring her own case to a close. But the SEC chose instead to take a mulligan. In 2018, the agency vacated the initial decision against Ms. Cochran and assigned a different, properly appointed ALJ to retry the case. So two years after her administrative proceedings began, they began again.

 For Ms. Cochran, that was enough. She sued the SEC in federal district court. She sought to enjoin the agency’s proceedings on the ground that all of its ALJs are unconstitutionally insulated from presidential supervision, pointing to this Court’s decisions in Lucia and Free Enterprise Fund. Lucia held that SEC ALJs are inferior officers under the Constitution’s Appointments Clause. 585 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 8). And Free Enterprise Fund held that the President must retain adequate authority to supervise and even remove such officers. 561 U. S., at 492.

 In 2019, the district court dismissed Ms. Cochran’s suit without reaching its merits. 2019 WL 1359252 (ND Tex., Mar. 25, 2019). The court did so because it thought Thunder Basin required that result. Id., at *1. A year and a half later, a panel of the Fifth Circuit ran through the Thunder Basin factors and affirmed. 969 F. 3d 507 (2020). A year and a half after that, the en banc Fifth Circuit took another look and largely reversed. 20 F. 4th 194 (2021). Now, more than four years after Ms. Cochran filed her complaint, this Court balances the Thunder Basin factors anew and holds that her case belonged in district court all along. Ante, at  17–18. For its part, Axon has endured a similarly tortuous path. Over the course of three years, the district court dismissed its case, 452 F. Supp. 3d 882 (Ariz. 2020), and the court of appeals affirmed, 986 F. 3d 1173 (CA9 2021), only to have this Court reverse that judgment today.

 This is what a win looks like under Thunder Basin. When you replace clear jurisdictional rules with a jumble of factors, the room for disagreement grows. The incentive to litigate increases. Years and fortunes are lost just figuring out where a case belongs. Ms. Cochran and Axon have already endured multi-year odysseys through the entire federal judicial system—and no judge yet has breathed a word about the merits of their claims. Nor can I fault the district court in Ms. Cochran’s case, or all of the lower courts in Axon’s case, for thinking the Thunder Basin factors required dismissal. When we give our lower-court colleagues such confused instructions, we guarantee different courts will regularly reach different outcomes on the same facts.

 Maybe even worse is what Thunder Basin means for others. Not many possess the perseverance of Ms. Cochran and Axon. The cost, time, and uncertainty associated with litigating a raft of opaque jurisdictional factors will deter many people from even trying to reach the court of law to which they are entitled. Nor is the loss of a day in court in favor of one before an agency a small thing. Agencies like the SEC and FTC combine the functions of investigator, prosecutor, and judge under one roof. They employ relaxed rules of procedure and evidence—rules they make for themselves. The numbers reveal just how tilted this game is. From 2010 to 2015, the SEC won 90% of its contested in-house proceedings compared to 69% of the cases it brought in federal court. See G. Mark, Response: SEC Enforcement Discretion, 94 Texas L. Rev. 261, 262 (2016). Meanwhile, some say the FTC has not lost an in-house proceeding in 25 years. See Brief for Petitioner in No. 21–86, p. 47. But see Brief for American Antitrust Institute as Amicus Curiae in  No. 21–86, p. 18 (suggesting the FTC has won more like 90% of the time).

 That review is available in a court of appeals after an agency completes its work hardly makes up for a day in court before an agency says it’s done. When a case eventually makes its way to an appellate court, judges sometimes defer to the agency’s conclusions (especially when it comes to disputed questions of fact). And how many people can afford to carry a case that far anyway? Ms. Cochran’s administrative proceedings have already dragged on for seven years. Thanks in part to these realities, the bulk of agency cases settle. See Tilton v. SEC, 824 F. 3d 276, 298, n. 5 (CA2 2016) (Droney, J., dissenting) (“vast majority” of SEC cases settle); Tr. of Oral Arg. in No. 21–1239, p. 6 (“more than 90 percent” of such cases settle). Aware, too, that few can outlast or outspend the federal government, agencies sometimes use this as leverage to extract settlement terms they could not lawfully obtain any other way.4 Like any needlessly unclear jurisdictional test, Thunder Basin carries with it real costs—for individuals seeking to vindicate their rights, for lower courts who deserve better guidance, and for our legal system’s promise of a “just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every” case, Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 1.

*

 When Congress withholds jurisdiction, we must respect its choice. But when Congress grants jurisdiction to the Nation’s courts, we must respect that choice too. We have no authority to froth plain statutory text with factors of our  own design, all with an eye to denying some people the day in court the law promises them. Respectfully, this Court should be done with the Thunder Basin project. I hope it will be soon.