This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
According to Petitioners (Credit Suisse Securities), according to Petitioners (Credit Suisse Securities), credit Suisse argues that the Court should apply implied antitrust immunity based on prior decisions in Gordon and NASD.
Background and question before the Court
According to Petitioners (Credit Suisse Securities), according to Petitioners (Credit Suisse Securities), the pivotal question is whether this Court's decisions in Gordon and NASD require implied antitrust immunity as the district court believed.
What each side argues
Petitioner – Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC
According to Petitioners (Credit Suisse Securities), according to Petitioners (Credit Suisse Securities), credit Suisse contends that implied antitrust immunity should apply because of the precedents set in Gordon and NASD.
Respondent – Glen Billing
Source-limited. The record does not yet support a complete account.
What happened at oral argument
Justice Scalia asked: “Did we mention them in those cases?”
Justice Alito asked how the Court should distinguish whether the alleged conduct is intertwined with authorized conduct.
Justice Scalia asked why the SEC could not make rules for coordination of IPOs.
Justice Alito asked how a court could enforce the alleged conduct at the 12(b)(6) stage.
According to Chief Justice Roberts, chief Justice Roberts announced that the case is now submitted.
What the Court decided
Why it matters
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- 8cfa6d6b77f023ccd225-r1-0393be30f0b98f98.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 21, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.