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
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Jackler v. Merit Systems Protection Board

In Jackler v. Merit Systems Protection Board, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is considering whether the Trump administration can ignore critical civil service laws when removing Immigration Judges.
Rule of Law
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York

Comey v. Department of Justice

In Comey v. Department of Justice, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York is considering whether the Attorney General can fire an Assistant U.S. Attorney in contravention of legal protections...
Rule of Law
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

DHS Probationary Employees 1 Class v. Department of Homeland Security

In DHS Probationary Employees 1 Class v. Department of Homeland Security, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is considering whether the Trump Administration’s efforts to unilaterally reshape the federal government through...
Rule of Law
July 10, 2026

July Newsletter: The Legacy of the Declaration of Independence Belongs to We the People

Rule of Law
July 7, 2026

CAC Release: DOJ Under Todd Blanche Fails to Disclose Epstein Files (Again)

WASHINGTON, DC – In response to the Trump administration’s failure to disclose the Epstein files...
By: Praveen Fernandes
Rule of Law
July 4, 2026

Why Would President Trump Want to Celebrate the Declaration of Independence?

Common Dreams
CAC Vice President Praveen Fernandes wrote an op-ed for Common Dreams explaining the similarities between...
By: Praveen Fernandes