2020 Supreme Court term

AMG CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC ET AL. v. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

Dockets 19-508Decided
AI-generated independent summary

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

The Federal Trade Commission sued Scott Tucker for deceptive payday‑lending practices and the district court granted a permanent injunction and ordered $1.27 billion in restitution and disgorgement.

The Ninth Circuit rejected Tucker’s argument that §13(b) does not authorize equitable monetary relief.

The Supreme Court granted certiorari, heard oral argument on January 13 2021, and issued its decision on April 22 2021.

Justice Breyer delivered the opinion of the Court.

Background and question before the Court

Source-limited The available primary sources do not support a complete explanation yet.

What each side argues

Petitioner (AMG Capital Management, LLC)

According to Petitioners, section 13(b) authorizes only a permanent injunction, not monetary relief.

According to Petitioners, section 5(l) allows further equitable relief only if Congress intended it; the word “injunction” does not imply all equitable relief.

According to Petitioners, section 19 provides monetary relief with safeguards; Congress did not intend §13(b) to bypass those safeguards.

Respondent (Federal Trade Commission)

According to FTC, historical cases (Porter v. Warner Holding Co.; Mitchell v. Robert DeMario Jewelry, Inc.) support that injunctive authority includes equitable monetary relief.

According to Commission, the Commission does not seek to use an injunction to enforce a right to restitution; restitution is sought as separate equitable relief.

What happened at oral argument

Justices Alito, Kagan, and Gorsuch asked questions about the scope of §13(b) and the practicality of granting monetary relief.

The Commission argued that §13(b) permits monetary relief, while the petitioners argued it does not.

What the Court decided

Justice Breyer delivered the opinion of the Court.

The Court reversed the Ninth Circuit’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Why it matters

Source-limited The available primary sources do not support a complete explanation yet.

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.

  • cf1dc4ba0a24f4d48ecb-r1-da6febf7dfa311d8.pdforal argument transcript
  • d4a05b9c5cdb301227e1-r1-a3b3061f560bff34.pdfopinion

Guide generated September 28, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.