This study examines whether the efficiency of federal district courts affects the likelihood of SEC enforcement. The results indicate that the SEC is less likely to initiate enforcement actions against firms in less efficient federal district courts. In addition, the study examines the implications of court efficiency for firms’ financial reporting quality (FRQ). The evidence suggests that firms residing in more efficient federal districts have higher FRQ and the effect is stronger in subsamples with weak private enforcement regimes. Additional analysis of the choice of venue suggests that the SEC's decision to file in the District Court for D.C. is not affected by local court efficiency. Collectively, this study highlights the importance of an efficient federal judicial system for public enforcement.

We examine the objective function of the SEC against financial misconduct by estimating a structural model of the interactions between the SEC and a regulated firm. The SEC considers social costs, enforcement costs, and firms' compliance costs when making enforcement decisions. Identification exploits SOX as a shock to enforcement intensity. Four insights emerge from counterfactual analyses. First, marginal social costs have a greater impact on the SEC's perceived welfare than marginal enforcement costs. Second, the SEC's current enforcement mitigates earnings management to a level close to the first-best scenario. Third, a “hawkish” regulator, who perceives high social costs of financial misconduct, would impose excessive costs on society. Lastly, removing regulatory discretion would result in higher penalties and lower welfare, with little effect on earnings management.