> Regulators have strictly less power than courts here when applying existing... regulation I guess it's a matter of terminology, but I think there are at leas

> Regulators have strictly less power than courts here when applying existing... regulation I guess it's a matter of terminology, but I think there are at least some cases where this isn't true. Ex post facto legislation is permitted in civil law, but it's not something courts can generate in response to a case. Regulators operating under administrative law can create ex post facto rules wholesale if granted express permission by Congress, which is of course new regulation. But even without that grant, they can create limited retroactive rulings when new interpretations are offered during adjudication. [1] We can debate whether that's 'new regulation' or 'new interpretations of old regulation', but the net result is that regulators are empowered to cover unforeseen circumstances in ways that direct lawsuits are unlikely to offer. (I am not a lawyer, but...) a move like this looks like an invitation for a Chenery II action, if one is was even needed. The SIPC didn't want to issue brokerage-account protections for a "Checking & Savings Account", and whatever the SEC said to Robinhood produced a very swift change of tune. I suspect it was something like "if we go into adjudication and say magic ampersands don't change your issuing rights, every court in the country will back us up". [1] http://www.minnesotalawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Schmitter_MLR1.pdf http://www.minnesotalawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02...