1. Willfulness & Good-faith: This Court held in Taggart, that "willfulness " requires "no fair ground of doubt " and in both Safeco and McLaughlin, that "willfulness " requires measures of bad-faith or recklessness. A 5-2 circuit split exists over the illogical coexistence of "willfulness " and good-faith. There is a 7-3 circuit split on whether "willfulness " allows for a "reasonable good-faith defense ". The 3rd Circuit has held that "willfulness " imposes "strict liability ", "willfulness " require "bad-faith ", "no fair ground of doubt ", and "recklessness " in the civil regulatory context?

2. Delegated Powers: An agency delegated limited authority to an SRO. The agency 's powers allow its congressionally confirmed commissioners to subpoena documents, contestable and enforceable only by the judiciary. The regulatee cannot be held liable for contestation. Conversely, the SRO can demand documents without subpoena and without a priori judicial adjudication. Is it impermissible for an SRO to assert greater power than the agency from which its power derives?

3. Due-process: For weeks, the regulatee in good-faith cooperated with the SRO 's unannounced examination. For weeks, the SRO ignored the regulatee 's clarification requests on the legitimacy of a document request. The agency can issue subpoenas, subject to a priori judicial adjudication. The SRO does not refer the case to the agency. A complaint is filed by the SRO 26-days before the deadline. Is this a violation of the regulatee 's protections under the Fifth Amendment?

Willfulness & Good-faith