October Term 2020 · Docket 19-508
Can the FTC recover stolen money in court?
The FTC seeks to recover money from a fraudster. The fraudster argues the law only allows stopping future fraud.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — An official Court opinion 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
AMG's counsel argued the law only allows injunctions. He said this prevents keeping stolen money.
The FTC's counsel argued the law allows monetary recovery. He said this serves the statute's purpose.
Justice Alito asked about the relationship to criminal forfeiture. He inquired if the amounts matched.
Justice Alito asked if money was already distributed. He sought to understand the practical impact.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 29-37 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 29-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 19-9 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 19-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 23-37 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 23-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 41-47 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 41-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 25-33 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 25-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 41-47 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 41-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 14, lines 17-31 — Transcript, file page 14, lines 17-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 15, lines 17-55 — Transcript, file page 15, lines 17-55
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 51-33 — Transcript, file page 16, lines 51-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 31, lines 15-13 — Transcript, file page 31, lines 15-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 11-23 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 11-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 25-21 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 25-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 23-21 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 23-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 9-29 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 9-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 15-37 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 15-37
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
The Federal Trade Commission sued AMG Capital Management. The agency wants to recover money from a fraud scheme. AMG argues the law only allows stopping future fraud. The lower court sided with the FTC. AMG now asks the Supreme Court to review that result.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 31, lines 15-13 — Transcript, file page 31, lines 15-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 25-21 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 25-21
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on January 13, 2021.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 11-23 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 11-23
What each side wants
The FTC wants to recover money from AMG. It argues the law allows this remedy.
AMG wants to keep the money. It argues the law only allows stopping future fraud.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 31, lines 15-13 — Transcript, file page 31, lines 15-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 25-21 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 25-21
What each side says
The FTC argues the law allows monetary recovery. It claims this fits the statute's purpose.
AMG argues the law only allows injunctions. It claims this matches the statute's text.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 31, lines 15-13 — Transcript, file page 31, lines 15-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 25-21 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 25-21
What the justices asked
Chief Justice Roberts asked about statutory interpretation changes. He noted the law passed fifty years ago.
Justice Breyer noted both sides presented strong arguments. He acknowledged the difficulty of the legal question.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 29-37 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 29-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 19-9 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 19-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 23-37 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 23-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 41-47 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 41-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 25-33 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 25-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 41-47 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 41-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 14, lines 17-31 — Transcript, file page 14, lines 17-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 15, lines 17-55 — Transcript, file page 15, lines 17-55
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 51-33 — Transcript, file page 16, lines 51-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 23-21 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 23-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 9-29 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 9-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 15-37 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 15-37
Why it matters
This case defines the FTC's power to recover money. It affects how agencies enforce consumer protection laws. It determines whether fraudsters keep stolen funds.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 31, lines 15-13 — Transcript, file page 31, lines 15-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 25-21 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 25-21
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 29-37 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 29-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 19-9 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 19-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 23-37 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 23-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 41-47 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 41-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 25-33 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 25-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 41-47 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 41-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 14, lines 17-31 — Transcript, file page 14, lines 17-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 15, lines 17-55 — Transcript, file page 15, lines 17-55
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 51-33 — Transcript, file page 16, lines 51-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 11-23 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 11-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 23-21 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 23-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 9-29 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 9-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 15-37 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 15-37
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Verified official opinions and orders
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 31, lines 15-13 — Transcript, file page 31, lines 15-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 25-21 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 25-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 31, lines 15-13 — Transcript, file page 31, lines 15-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 25-21 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 25-21
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Post Opinion ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Post Opinion ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.