In an interview with Texas Politics, U.S. Representative Pete Sessions (R) criticized the use of taxpayer dollars to fund civil enforcement cases that, in his view, could be pursed privately without government involvement.
Sessions framed the issue around the concept of harm.
“If you’re harmed, you’re entitled to complain to an agency,” he said. “But once it’s determined the agency may not have jurisdiction, civil litigation is available and so is enforcement by the agency.”
“It’s a double-edged sword,” Sessions added.
He explained that enforcement and litigation often occur together. Agencies like the SEC may initiate an investigation, which is then followed by private lawsuits. This overlap tends to raise questions about the cost to taxpayers. Especially when both the government and private parties pursue the same target.
Sessions acknowledged, however, that agencies play an important role when individuals cannot easily pursue legal action themselves, due to costs or legal complexity. He went on to emphasize the need for oversight, particularly when enforcement becomes drawn out or lacks clear justification.
“Agencies need to prove they have the right to be involved,” he said, adding that better checks are needed to prevent unnecessary enforcement actions funded by the public.
His comments align with broader concerns about the scope of federal regulatory authority and its impact on due process, cost-efficiency, and market fairness.
