The U.S. Supreme Court delivered an important enforcement win to the Securities and Exchange Commission by preserving the agency’s ability to seek disgorgement in civil cases, including in the matter involving defendant Sripetch. For securities litigators and regulated businesses, the ruling is a reminder that even as the Court has shown increasing skepticism toward parts of the administrative state, it is not categorically stripping agencies of meaningful remedial tools.

Disgorgement has long been one of the SEC’s most potent remedies.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday delivered a significant administrative-law win to the Federal Communications Commission, ruling 8-1 that the agency may continue using its longstanding internal enforcement process to pursue monetary penalties against regulated companies. The decision rejects a constitutional challenge brought by wireless carriers including Verizon and ATT in a case arising from FCC investigations into whether carriers failed to adequately protect customers’ location information.

At issue was the FCC’s two-step penalty framework.

The Supreme Court on June 4 delivered an important win for the Federal Communications Commission, holding 8-1 that the agency may continue imposing data-privacy fines on telecommunications carriers through its existing enforcement framework. The ruling rejects a constitutional challenge brought by ATT and Verizon and leaves intact a key tool the FCC uses to police carrier handling of customer information.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion.

The Securities and Exchange Commission announced on May 18, 2026 that it has rescinded Rule 202.5(e), ending the agency’s long-standing practice of requiring settling parties not to publicly deny the SEC’s allegations. The change marks a notable shift in enforcement policy and is likely to alter the leverage, messaging, and negotiation dynamics in SEC resolutions going forward.

For decades, the SEC’s settlement framework allowed defendants to resolve cases without admitting wrongdoing in many instances, but it also prohibited them from later publicly disputing the agency’s allegations.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has temporarily paused a U.S. Court of International Trade ruling that would have halted collection of tariffs imposed under President Trump’s trade program, preserving the status quo while appellate review moves forward. The order keeps the tariffs in place for now in a closely watched dispute over the scope of presidential trade authority and the limits of emergency-based executive action.

The litigation includes challenges brought by states and private importers, including State of Oregon v. Trump, now before the Federal Circuit.

The U.S. Supreme Court appears inclined to further restrict federal agencies’ ability to impose monetary penalties through in-house proceedings, with oral argument suggesting meaningful support for telecom companies challenging the FCC’s fining process. If that instinct becomes doctrine, the decision could reshape not only communications enforcement, but also the broader administrative enforcement toolkit used across the federal government.

The dispute centers on whether the FCC may assess fines administratively against regulated entities such as ATT and Verizon, or whether the Constitution requires those claims to be tried before a jury in federal court.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday left in place, for now, lower-court rulings that allow the mailing of the abortion pill mifepristone to continue while litigation proceeds. The order preserves the status quo in one of the most closely watched administrative-law and reproductive-rights disputes in the country, avoiding an immediate change to how patients and providers access medication abortion.

At a practical level, the Court’s action means that providers, pharmacies, and telehealth platforms may continue relying on the current federal framework that permits distribution by mail, rather than shifting abruptly to a more restrictive regime.

The U.S. Supreme Court appeared reluctant at oral argument to upend the Federal Communications Commission’s internal enforcement process in a dispute brought by ATT and Verizon over privacy-related penalties exceeding $100 million. The case puts a familiar administrative-law question in sharp focus: when a federal agency seeks significant civil penalties, how much process is constitutionally required before those sanctions become final?

The telecom companies are challenging the FCC’s practice of assessing penalties through its own adjudicative machinery rather than requiring the government to proceed first in federal court.

The U.S. Supreme Court remains the center of gravity for several of the most consequential legal developments heading into May 2026, with new rulings and pending matters poised to reshape administrative authority, litigation strategy, and corporate risk planning. For legal professionals, the significance is less about any single headline and more about the cumulative direction of the Court: closer scrutiny of agency action, sharper attention to procedural limits, and continued willingness to resolve disputes with broad downstream effects.

That trend matters immediately for litigators challenging or defending federal action.

The U.S. Supreme Court appeared hesitant during oral argument to embrace ATT and Verizon’s effort to upend the Federal Communications Commission’s in-house penalty process, a challenge that could have reshaped how federal agencies pursue civil enforcement.

The dispute stems from FCC allegations that the telecom companies failed to adequately protect customers’ location data, allowing sensitive information to be sold or accessed without sufficient safeguards.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has struck down a Trump-era executive order that sought to suspend access to asylum at the southern border, holding that the president cannot use a proclamation to override the asylum process Congress created in the Immigration and Nationality Act.

The ruling is significant because it reinforces a basic separation-of-powers principle in the immigration context: where a federal statute gives noncitizens the right to apply for asylum, the executive branch cannot eliminate that statutory pathway by unilateral order.

Litigation tied to the Trump administration remains one of the most consequential forces in federal courts, even when no single case captures the entire story. Across disputes involving executive authority, agency data access, immigration enforcement, and the boundaries between government power and the legal profession, courts are continuing to issue rulings that will shape public-law litigation for years.

One recent flashpoint involves challenges requiring agencies to justify contested access to government data, underscoring how Trump-era governance disputes have expanded beyond headline policy fights into core questions of administrative structure, privacy, and statutory authority.