> Not according to the government, and they're the horse's mouth on this.
You seem to be referencing some specific statement that you didn't provide.
I'm guessing that you are confused about the phrase "independent agency". Or possibly you're remembering cases like Lucia v. SEC where certain SEC staff were (unsuccessfully) challenged as not conforming with the Article II appointments clause. The insulation of these sort of agencies from direct presidential oversight continues to be a source of debate in conservative legal circles, but where these agencies sit in the constitutional order is not remotely controversial. They're not part of the judiciary and they're not part of Congress so they can only be part of the executive.
> The executive branch also includes executive departments, independent agencies, and other boards, commissions, and committees.
More to the point, congress lacks the ability under the constitution to create government structures outside the three branches. The language establishing the SEC makes very clear that its structure conforms with how Article II defines the executive branch:
> There is hereby established a Securities and Exchange Commission (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Commission’) to be composed of five commissioners to be appointed by the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.
> he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law:
The SEC is established and appropriated by congress, staffed by people who receive government paychecks, led by presidential appointees, etc etc. I'd be interested to know whether you think it's either
- not part of the US government
- part of a different branch
- part of the US government outside a branch that the constitution specifies
The SEC is an agency of the federal government. It is not a part of any particular branch, really. The executive branch cannot just demand that the SEC engage in any particular action, unlike agencies that are formally part of the executive branch.
The legislative branch can demand particular action from the SEC, albeit indirectly, by altering, passing, or revoking the laws that the SEC is tasked with enforcing.
I read Humphrey’s Executor and skimmed Selia v CFPB last night and now I feel somewhat less confident in my assertions. My takeaway is: the government is complicated.
Not according to the government, and they're the horse's mouth on this.
> SEC commissioners are nominated by POTUS and confirmed by the senate
This is correct, but not really to the point.