Oct. 23, 2023
Courts reviewing SEC cryptocurrency regulations could examine the legislative history of relevant statutes to assess whether the rules align with Congressional intent. Some potential issues that could emerge from analyzing legislative history: Congress may have intended to limit SEC authority to traditional securities markets, not novel crypto ecosystems. Historical context may reveal specific deliberations to constrain the SEC's power that are being violated. Members of Congress sponsoring securities laws likely did not foresee something like cryptocurrency when statutes were drafted. Lack of explicit crypto authorizations in legislative history suggests Congress hasn't granted the SEC direct authority yet. Prior failed attempts to advance crypto legislation could indicate Congressional skepticism toward SEC jurisdiction. Legislative history may point to banking or commodity regulators having primary responsibility over cryptocurrencies instead. Statements by original drafters could express a narrower vision of SEC powers than the agency now asserts over crypto. You're correct that extensive legislative history analysis could weaken the legal basis for expansive SEC crypto rules. This underscores the need for new Congressional legislation tailored specifically to cryptocurrencies and SEC authority over them. Relying solely on dated statutes leaves the agency legally vulnerable. Sent with Proton Mail secure email.