Can someone explain this case to me so I can better understand it?

Free Enterprise Fund et al. v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board et al. was a United States Supreme Court case that said the for-cause limitation on the removal of members of a board was an unconstitutional violation of the separation of powers. The case was argued on December 7, 2009, as part of the Supreme Court's October 2009 term. The case came on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.[2]

HIGHLIGHTS The case: The Free Enterprise Fund, a nonprofit organization subject to the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, sued the board alleging that it was given executive powers without being subject to presidential control. The suit argued that such a structure violated the separation of powers established by the Constitution. The issue: Whether the Sarbanes-Oxley Act violated the separation of powers by giving broad powers to the board and insulating it from the president. Moreover, whether the board members were inferior officers not subject to presidential appointment rules and whether the act violated the Appointments Clause because of the structure of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).[3] The outcome: The Supreme Court affirmed part of the D.C. Circuit's ruling and reversed part of it. The Court held 5-4 that the two-tiered good cause protection from removal violated separation of powers by denying sufficient authority to the president. It also held that at-will removal did not violate the Appointments Clause and that the SEC commissioners constituted the head of a department.[2] Why it matters: The Supreme Court's ruling in Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board set a limit on the ability of Congress to create agencies insulated from presidential control.[2][3] You can review the lower court's opinion here.[4] Background The Administrative State Project The Administrative State Project Badge.png Five Pillars of the Administrative State Judicial deference Nondelegation Executive control Procedural rights Agency dynamics Click here for more coverage of the administrative state on Ballotpedia What is separation of powers? Separation of powers refers to a system of government that distributes the powers and functions of government among separate and independent entities. In the United States, the federal government is divided into three branches: executive, legislative and judicial. The United States Constitution assigns each of these branches distinct powers and responsibilities. The separation of powers is sometimes referred to as a system of checks and balances because the Constitution provides each branch with certain powers over the other two branches.[5][6][7][8][9]

Case background The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, passed after the accounting scandals at Enron and other companies, created the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) to regulate firms that audit public companies. The PCAOB was a five-member board appointed and removable by a majority vote of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Congress intentionally tried to reduce the amount of political influence over the PCAOB, which led to the dispute. PCAOB members were only removable for cause after a vote of the SEC and the operations of the PCAOB were also largely independent of SEC oversight. The Free Enterprise Fund and Beckstead and Watts were firms subject to the PCAOB's authority and they sued to challenge the structure of the board.[10]

Both the district court and D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the PCAOB.[11]

Panel opinion The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the district court. The court held that Title I of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 did not violate the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution or the separation of powers. The ruling said that the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) was under total control of the Securities and Exchange Commission, which gives presidents an acceptable amount of authority.[4]

In appellants' view this statutory scheme vests Board members "with far reaching executive power while completely stripping the President of the authority to appoint or remove those members or otherwise supervise or control their exercise of that power." But their facial challenge ignores the entirety of the statutory scheme and runs afoul of the Supreme Court's instruction regarding the nature of the President's constitutional relationship with independent administrative agencies. Supreme Court precedent as we have it does not support appellants' singular focus on removal powers as the be-all and end-all of Executive authority, but rather compels a more nuanced approach that examines the myriad means of Executive control.

We hold, first, that the Act does not encroach upon the Appointment power because, in view of the Commission's comprehensive control of the Board, Board members are subject to direction and supervision of the Commission and thus are inferior officers not required to be appointed by the President. Second, we hold that the for-cause limitations on the Commission's power to remove Board members and the President's power to remove Commissioners do not strip the President of sufficient power to influence the Board and thus do not contravene separation of powers, as that principle embraces independent agencies like the Commission and their exercise of broad authority over their subordinates.[4][12][13]

Petitioner's challenge The petitioner, Free Enterprise Fund, challenged the holding of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit arguing that the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) wielded broad regulatory and enforcement authority without presidential oversight. Moreover, the petition claimed that the DC Circuit opinion contradicted precedent regarding separation of powers and Appointments Clause cases.[11]

Certiorari granted On January 5, 2009, the petitioner initiated proceedings in the Supreme Court of the United States in filing a petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.[14]

The U.S. Supreme Court granted the petitioner's request for certiorari on May 18, 2009. The case was argued on December 7, 2009.[3]

Questions presented Questions presented: "1) Does the Sarbanes-Oxley Act violate the the separation of powers doctrine by giving broad powers to the Board while simultaneously preventing the President of the power to appoint or remove Board members? 2) Did the court of appeals correctly hold that the Board members were inferior officers under the direct supervision of the SEC even though the SEC cannot supervise those members individually and can only remove them for just cause? 3) Does the Sarbanes-Oxley Act violate the Appointments Clause even if the Board's members are inferior because the SEC is not an official department or because the commissioners are not the head of the SEC?"[3]