October Term 2019 · Docket 18-1501
Does SEC disgorgement count as a penalty?
the sides that brought the case argue disgorgement is a penalty. The SEC argues it is equitable relief.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
the sides that brought the case claim disgorgement is a penalty under Kokesh.
The SEC claims disgorgement is equitable relief for victims.
Justice Alito questioned if Congress meant to incorporate old equity rules.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 14-16 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 14-16
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 32-34 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 32-34
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 50-34 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 50-34
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 52-10 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 52-10
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 14-18 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 14-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 24-30 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 24-30
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 52-8 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 52-8
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 15, lines 28-36 — Transcript, file page 15, lines 28-36
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 34-40 — Transcript, file page 16, lines 34-40
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 30, lines 28-54 — Transcript, file page 30, lines 28-54
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 10-20 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 10-20
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 22-28 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 22-28
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 30-40 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 30-40
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 28-34 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 28-34
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 10-26 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 10-26
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
The case tests whether disgorgement is a penalty or equitable relief.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 30, lines 28-54 — Transcript, file page 30, lines 28-54
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 22-28 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 22-28
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on March 3, 2020.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 10-20 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 10-20
What each side wants
the sides that brought the case want the Court to strike the disgorgement order.
The SEC wants the Court to keep the disgorgement order.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 30, lines 28-54 — Transcript, file page 30, lines 28-54
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 22-28 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 22-28
What each side says
the sides that brought the case argue disgorgement is a penalty requiring statutory authorization.
The SEC argues disgorgement is equitable relief for investors.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 30, lines 28-54 — Transcript, file page 30, lines 28-54
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 22-28 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 22-28
What the justices asked
Justice Ginsburg asked if Kokesh limited the penalty label to statutes of limitations.
Justice Sotomayor asked about statutes granting equitable relief for investors.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 14-16 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 14-16
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 32-34 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 32-34
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 50-34 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 50-34
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 52-10 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 52-10
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 14-18 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 14-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 24-30 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 24-30
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 52-8 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 52-8
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 15, lines 28-36 — Transcript, file page 15, lines 28-36
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 34-40 — Transcript, file page 16, lines 34-40
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 30-40 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 30-40
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 28-34 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 28-34
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 10-26 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 10-26
Why it matters
This case defines the scope of SEC enforcement powers. It determines whether disgorgement requires specific statutory approval. It affects how agencies recover funds from violators.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 30, lines 28-54 — Transcript, file page 30, lines 28-54
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 22-28 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 22-28
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 14-16 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 14-16
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 32-34 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 32-34
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 50-34 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 50-34
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 52-10 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 52-10
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 14-18 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 14-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 24-30 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 24-30
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 52-8 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 52-8
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 15, lines 28-36 — Transcript, file page 15, lines 28-36
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 34-40 — Transcript, file page 16, lines 34-40
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 10-20 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 10-20
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 30-40 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 30-40
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 28-34 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 28-34
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 10-26 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 10-26
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 30, lines 28-54 — Transcript, file page 30, lines 28-54
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 22-28 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 22-28
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 30, lines 28-54 — Transcript, file page 30, lines 28-54
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 22-28 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 22-28
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.