Corporate Accountability

RELEASE: Justices Lean Toward Recognizing Courts’ Power To Order Disgorgement

“The Justices barely discussed whether courts have disgorgement authority at all. Rather, the argument focused on whether the Court should impose any reasonable limits on the amount of disgorgement that can be imposed.” — CAC Appellate Counsel Ashwin Phatak

WASHINGTON – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court this morning in Liu v. SEC, Constitutional Accountability Center Appellate Counsel Ashwin Phatak, present for today’s proceedings, issued the following reaction:

After this morning’s argument, it seems that the Justices will recognize, as they should, that district courts have the authority to order violators of the nation’s securities laws to turn over their ill-gotten gains. As even counsel for Liu acknowledged during today’s argument, multiple laws are premised on the existence of disgorgement authority, and those provisions would make no sense if courts could not order disgorgement. Indeed, it was notable that the Justices barely discussed whether courts have disgorgement authority at all. Rather, the argument focused on whether the Court should impose any reasonable limits on the amount of disgorgement that can be imposed.

#

Resources:

CAC case page in Liu v. SEC: https://www.theusconstitution.org/litigation/liu-v-sec/

##

Constitutional Accountability Center is a think tank, public interest law firm, and action center dedicated to fulfilling the progressive promise of the Constitution’s text and history. Visit CAC’s website at www.theusconstitution.org.

###

More from Corporate Accountability

Corporate Accountability
September 9, 2025

ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS—Fifth Circuit rejects petition challenging OCC authority to enforce national banking rules

Wolters Kluwer VitalLaw
The court distinguished the national banking regulatory regime from the SEC’s antifraud provision in Jarkesy and the...
Corporate Accountability
July 11, 2025

This Group’s Record in Front of the Roberts Court Is Mind-Boggling

Slate
In a provocative dissenting opinion, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson recently called out her colleagues on the Supreme Court...
By: Ana Builes, Brian R. Frazelle
Corporate Accountability
July 2, 2025

Moneyed Interests Still Prevail at the Supreme Court (2024-2025 Term)

The Court Continues to Favor Corporations over Workers, Consumers, and the Environment.
By: Brian R. Frazelle, Ana Builes
Corporate Accountability
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Novartis v. Secretary United States Department of Health and Human Services

In Novartis v. Secretary United States Department of Health and Human Services, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit considered whether the Inflation Reduction Act’s Medicare drug price negotiation program is an unconstitutional...
Corporate Accountability
January 28, 2025

Federal Deposit Insurance as Jarkesy Waiver

Yale Journal on Regulation
An argument lurking just beneath the surface in a pending Fifth Circuit case could stem...
Corporate Accountability
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Boehringer Ingelheim v. Department of Health and Human Services

In Boehringer Ingelheim v. Department of Health and Human Services, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit considered whether the Inflation Reduction Act’s Medicare drug price negotiation program is an unconstitutional taking...