Rule of Law

CAC Release: Unanimous Supreme Court Holds the SEC Need Not Prove Investor Losses to Obtain Disgorgement

WASHINGTON, DC – Following today’s unanimous decision at the Supreme Court in Sripetch v. Securities and Exchange Commission, a case in which the Court considered whether a showing of pecuniary harm to investors is a prerequisite to an award of disgorgement in a civil action brought by the Securities and Exchange Commission, Constitutional Accountability Center Legal Fellow Simon Chin issued the following reaction:

Today, the Supreme Court unanimously held that the SEC does not have to prove that investors suffered a pecuniary loss before a court can order a securities-law violator to disgorge ill-gotten gains. The Court reached that result by applying traditional equitable principles, under which disgorgement has always been measured by the profits a wrongdoer gained, not by any loss victims suffered.

Justice Gorsuch’s opinion for the Court echoed the central argument of the amicus brief we filed on behalf of five of the nation’s leading remedies scholars—that disgorgement has never required a showing that the plaintiff suffered financial harm. For three centuries, courts have stripped wrongdoers of profits obtained by violating another person’s legally protected rights, whether or not the victim could prove any financial loss.

The Court grounded its reasoning in the same line of equitable cases our brief emphasized, in which courts ordered wrongdoers to surrender their gains even though victims suffered no measurable loss. The Court likewise relied on Dan B. Dobbs and Caprice L. Roberts’s treatise, Law of Remedies, co-authored by one of our amici, and on the Restatement (Third) of Restitution and Unjust Enrichment that several of our amici advised.

As our brief explained, requiring proof of investor loss would have eliminated the very function that disgorgement has served for centuries and unsettled bedrock principles of restitution law far beyond the securities context. Today’s decision declines to take that path and is a victory for the principle that those who violate the law may not profit from their own wrongdoing.

More from Rule of Law

Rule of Law
September 18, 2026

Not Above the Law Constitution Day Call

CAC’s Praveen Fernandes joined Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Representative Jamie Raskin, Public Citizen’s Lisa Gilbert, the...
By: Praveen Fernandes
Rule of Law
September 16, 2026

CAC Release: Plaintiffs File Opposition Brief Explaining Why Trump’s Efforts to Evade Accountability in Domestic Emoluments Clause Suit Should Be Rejected

WASHINGTON, DC – The Constitutional Accountability Center and Gelber Schachter & Greenberg jointly filed an...
By: Miriam Becker-Cohen, Gerald Greenberg
Rule of Law
September 10, 2026

September 2026 Newsletter: Protecting People’s Constitutional Rights and the Rule of Law Across the Country

This newsletter spends a lot of time on the U.S. Supreme Court, but here at CAC, we’re...
Rule of Law
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

Perlmutter v. Blanche

In Perlmutter v. Blanche, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is considering whether the President can unilaterally remove the Register of Copyrights.
Rule of Law
August 18, 2026

Not Above the Law Creator Call

CAC's Praveen Fernandes and Senator Sheldon Whitehouse spoke about what accountability looks like now that...
By: Praveen Fernandes, Sheldon Whitehouse
Rule of Law
August 29, 2026

Interview with Praveen Fernandes, Vice President at the Constitutional Accountability Center

AbbyTheAttorney
CAC Vice President Praveen Fernandes spoke to Abby Winters about the weaponization of the Department...
By: Praveen Fernandes, Abby Winters