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, the case concerns whether Section 14(e) of the Securities Exchange Act creates a private right of action for negligent violations.
Petitioners argue that Section 14(e) does not confer any implied private right.
According to Petitioners, the Ninth Circuit previously recognized an unprecedented inferred private right to recover for negligent violations of Section 14(e).
Background and question before the Court
According to Petitioners, the Ninth Circuit recognized an unprecedented inferred private right to recover for negligent violations of Section 14(e).
Petitioners contend that Section 14(e) does not confer any implied private right.
What each side argues
Petitioners’ Position
According to Petitioners, the Ninth Circuit recognized an unprecedented inferred private right to recover for negligent violations of Section 14(e).
According to Petitioners, section 14(e) does not confer any implied private right.
According to Mr. Garre, section 14(e) is written completely different than Section 14(a).
According to Mr. Garre, statutory context informs the text, and courts are especially cautious about recognizing implied private rights.
According to Mr. Geyser, the dispute can be resolved by applying the Court’s usual tools of statutory construction—text, context, purpose, and history.
According to Mr. Geyser, section 14(e) was intended to harmonize with Section 14(a).
- [1] 327fc0694bc388e89e8b-r1-04b51750f422c8f9.pdf, p. 4
- [2] 327fc0694bc388e89e8b-r1-04b51750f422c8f9.pdf, p. 4
- [3] 327fc0694bc388e89e8b-r1-04b51750f422c8f9.pdf, p. 23
- [4] 327fc0694bc388e89e8b-r1-04b51750f422c8f9.pdf, p. 24
- [5] 327fc0694bc388e89e8b-r1-04b51750f422c8f9.pdf, p. 40
- [6] 327fc0694bc388e89e8b-r1-04b51750f422c8f9.pdf, p. 51
Respondents’ Position
Source-limited. The record does not yet support a complete account.
What happened at oral argument
Justice Kavanaugh asked for the petitioner’s broader argument.
Justice Ginsburg asked whether even the SEC would have a right to sue for negligence under Section 14(e).
Justice Sotomayor asked why the Court should not require scienter for Section 14(e) as it does for §10b‑5.
Justice Kavanaugh asked about the parties’ response to the Central Bank issue.
Chief Justice Roberts asked what to do with Ms. Ratner’s distinction of Cannon.
Justice Kavanaugh asked, “Are you sure about that?” in response to the petitioner’s argument.
Justice Kavanaugh stated that there is no private right of action in the text of Section 14(e).
- [1] 327fc0694bc388e89e8b-r1-04b51750f422c8f9.pdf, p. 23
- [2] 327fc0694bc388e89e8b-r1-04b51750f422c8f9.pdf, p. 27
- [3] 327fc0694bc388e89e8b-r1-04b51750f422c8f9.pdf, p. 30
- [4] 327fc0694bc388e89e8b-r1-04b51750f422c8f9.pdf, p. 62
- [5] 327fc0694bc388e89e8b-r1-04b51750f422c8f9.pdf, p. 66
- [6] 327fc0694bc388e89e8b-r1-04b51750f422c8f9.pdf, p. 70
- [7] 327fc0694bc388e89e8b-r1-04b51750f422c8f9.pdf, p. 44
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.
- 327fc0694bc388e89e8b-r1-04b51750f422c8f9.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 26, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.