|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|18-1501||9th Cir.||Mar 3, 2020||Jun 22, 2020||8-1||Sotomayor||OT 2019|
Holding: In a Securities and Exchange Commission enforcement action, a disgorgement award that does not exceed a wrongdoer’s net profits and is awarded for victims is equitable relief permissible under 15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(5).
Judgment: Vacated and remanded, 8-1, in an opinion by Justice Sotomayor on June 22, 2020. Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Mar 22 2019||Application (18A958) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from April 3, 2019 to May 31, 2019, submitted to Justice Kagan.|
|Mar 22 2019||Application (18A958) granted by Justice Kagan extending the time to file until May 31, 2019.|
|May 31 2019||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due July 3, 2019)|
|Jun 13 2019||Waiver of right of respondent Securities and Exchange Commission to respond filed.|
|Jun 19 2019||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/1/2019.|
|Jul 05 2019||Response Requested. (Due August 5, 2019)|
|Jul 31 2019||Motion to extend the time to file a response from August 5, 2019 to September 4, 2019, submitted to The Clerk.|
|Aug 01 2019||Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including September 4, 2019.|
|Sep 04 2019||Brief of respondent Securities and Exchange Commission in opposition filed.|
|Sep 18 2019||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/11/2019.|
|Sep 18 2019||Reply of petitioners Charles C. Liu, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Oct 08 2019||Rescheduled.|
|Oct 15 2019||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/18/2019.|
|Oct 28 2019||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/1/2019.|
|Nov 01 2019||Petition GRANTED.|
|Nov 19 2019||Blanket Consent filed by Petitioners, Charles C. Liu, et al.|
|Nov 26 2019||SET FOR ARGUMENT on Tuesday, March 3, 2020.|
|Dec 16 2019||Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed)|
|Dec 16 2019||Brief of petitioners Charles C. Liu, et al. filed.|
|Dec 20 2019||Brief amicus curiae of Americans for Prosperity Foundation filed.|
|Dec 20 2019||Brief amicus curiae of Oak Management Corporation in support of neither party filed.|
|Dec 20 2019||Brief amicus curiae of Andy Altahawi filed.|
|Dec 20 2019||Brief amicus curiae of Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association filed.|
|Dec 20 2019||Brief amicus curiae of New England Legal Foundation filed.|
|Dec 23 2019||Brief amicus curiae of Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America filed.|
|Dec 23 2019||Brief amicus curiae of Washington Legal Foundation filed.|
|Dec 23 2019||Brief amici curiae of Law Professors filed.|
|Dec 23 2019||Brief amici curiae of Parker R. Hallam and Frederick A. Voight filed.|
|Dec 23 2019||Brief amicus curiae of The New Civil Liberties Alliance filed.|
|Dec 23 2019||Brief amicus curiae of Cato Institute filed.|
|Dec 23 2019||Brief amici curiae of Remedies and Restitution Scholars in support of neither party filed.|
|Jan 09 2020||Record requested from the U.S.C.A. 9th Circuit.|
|Jan 09 2020||The record of the USCA 9th Circuit is available on PACER. Sealed record material of the USDC Central District of California received electronically.|
|Jan 15 2020||Brief of respondent Securities and Exchange Commission filed.|
|Jan 20 2020||Brief amici curiae of Former Federal Trade Commission Officials filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 20 2020||Brief amici curiae of Securities Law Professors filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 21 2020||CIRCULATED|
|Jan 21 2020||Brief amici curiae of State of Illinois, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 22 2020||Brief amici curiae of Members of Congress filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 22 2020||Brief amici curiae of Better Markets, Inc., et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 22 2020||Brief amicus curiae of North American Securities Administrators Association, Inc. filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 22 2020||Brief amici curiae of Former Commissioners and Staff of the Securities and Exchange Commission filed. (Distributed)|
|Feb 14 2020||Reply of petitioners Charles C. Liu, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 03 2020||Argued. For petitioners: Gregory G. Rapawy, Washington, D. C. For respondent: Malcolm L. Stewart, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C.|
|Jun 22 2020||Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED. Sotomayor, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito, Kagan, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh, JJ., joined. Thomas, J., filed a dissenting opinion.|
|Jul 24 2020||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
The clerk of the court just notified counsel in a juvenile sentencing case—that was sent back to a lower court this week in light of the court's decision in Jones v. Mississippi—that Justice Kagan unwittingly failed to recuse herself after participating in part of the case as SG.
It’s a quiet week, so now is a great time to listen to Judge John Owens regale @AHoweBlogger with the tale of Ashton Embry and the greatest leak in Supreme Court history.
Come for the high drama, stay for the good humor and an RBG story or two.
The biggest leak in Supreme Court history - SCOTUSblog
In a city full of anonymous sources, the Supreme Court is famously leak-proof. But a century ago, the court had ...
The US Supreme Court should overturn the Facebook’s “Oversight Board’s” “ruling” which upholds the outlawing of the 45th President of the United States from social media.
This is a big tech, corporate oligarchy without standing and it’s gone too far. Enough is enough.
The Supreme Court will hear its last case of the term today at 10:00 a.m. EDT.
Here’s a summary of Terry v. United States in a TikTok minute.
Tomorrow, the Supreme Court will tackle the legacy of the Reagan-era War on Drugs and Congress' attempt to reduce the punishment disparity between crack-cocaine and powder cocaine offenses.
As @ekownyankah notes, this case has a little bit of everything.
In final case the court will hear this term, profound issues of race, incarceration and the war on drugs - SCOTUSblog
Academics naturally believe that even obscure cases in their field are underappreciated; each minor tax or bankruptcy ...
JUST IN: Another shadow-docket filing in which a church argues that state COVID-related restrictions lack sufficient carveouts for religious worship. This one challenges Colorado's restrictions. It relies heavily on last month's ruling in Tandon v. Newsom.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.