Although placed right up front in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the right to petition the government for redress of grievances is often overshadowed by the other First Amendment rights.  There can be no doubt, however, that the right to petition the government is an important right with a long historical tradition.  The so-called security clause of the Magna Carta (Chapter 61) included the right to petition the King:

Ita scilicet quod, si nos, vel justiciarius noster, vel ballivi nostris, vel aliquis de ministris nostris, in aliquo erga aliquem deliquerimus, vel aliquem articulorum pacis aut securitatis transgressi fuerimus . . . petent ut excessum illum sine dilatione faciamus emendari (So be it known that if we, or our justiciar (chief minister), or our bailiffs, or any of our ministers, should do wrong to anyone in any respect, or we have violated any articles of peace or security . . . let them petition so that we make right that transgression straight away.

Magna Carta (1215) (my translation).  A more limited right of petition can be found in Section 4(e) of the Administrative Procedure Act:

 Each agency shall give an interested person the right to petition for the issuance, amendment, or repeal of a rule.

5 U.S.C. § 553(e).  The Securities and Exchange Commission’s Rules of Practice seemingly implements this mandate:

The Secretary shall acknowledge, in writing, receipt of the petition and refer it to the appropriate division or office for consideration and recommendation.  Such recommendations shall be transmitted with the petition to the Commission for such action as the Commission deems appropriate.  The Secretary shall notify the petitioner of the action taken by the Commission.

17 C.F.R. § 201.192.  In practice, however, very few rights actually attend this right to petition, as was illustrated by the U.S. District Court’s recent ruling in Silberstein v. United States SEC, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 284 (D.D.C. Jan. 4, 2016).  The plaintiff in that case sued the SEC after it failed to take any action in response to his rulemaking petition for over a year.  The plaintiff complained that the SEC had both failed to respond and had effectively denied his petition.

With respect to both of these claims, Judge Rosemary M. Collyer ruled that the plaintiff was in the wrong court because Section 25(a)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act vests review of final orders of the SEC in the Court of Appeals, not the District Courts.  Judge Collyer also found that SEC did not deny the petition; it merely failed to respond to it.  Consequently, the plaintiff had failed to state a valid claim under the Administrative Procedure Act.