The U.S. Supreme Court handed federal regulators two important victories, preserving enforcement tools that many companies had hoped the justices might narrow. In one decision, the Court ruled for the Federal Communications Commission in its dispute with ATT and Verizon over agency-imposed fines. In the other, the Court unanimously sided with the Securities and Exchange Commission, affirming the agency’s ability to seek broad disgorgement in enforcement actions involving investor fraud.

Taken together, the rulings stand out because they cut against the recent trend of heightened judicial skepticism toward administrative agencies.

The SEC has imposed a $7.5 million penalty on Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner Smith Inc., the Bank of America brokerage unit, over failures tied to suspicious activity reporting. The enforcement action centers on allegations that Merrill Lynch did not file a sufficient number of suspicious activity reports, or SARs, despite obligations designed to help detect potential money laundering and other illicit activity through customer accounts.

For securities lawyers and compliance professionals, the case is a reminder that anti-money-laundering controls remain a live enforcement priority even when the underlying issue is not an affirmative fraud charge.

The Securities and Exchange Commission and Elon Musk have asked a federal court in Washington, D.C., to approve a settlement resolving claims that Musk failed to timely disclose his purchases of Twitter stock in 2022. The proposed resolution includes a $1.5 million civil penalty and would close one of the more visible disclosure-related enforcement disputes arising from Musk’s acquisition of the social media platform.

At the center of the matter is Section 13(d) of the Securities Exchange Act, which generally requires investors who cross the 5% ownership threshold in a public company to promptly disclose that stake to the market.

The U.S. Supreme Court handed the Securities and Exchange Commission an important enforcement victory on June 4, upholding the agency’s authority to pursue disgorgement in securities cases. The ruling preserves a remedy the SEC has long relied on to strip alleged wrongdoers of ill-gotten gains, and it arrives at a moment when the Court has often taken a more skeptical view of federal agency power.

For the SEC, disgorgement is not just an add-on remedy.

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.

In a unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court preserved the Securities and Exchange Commission’s ability to seek disgorgement without having to show identifiable investor harm in every enforcement action. The ruling is a significant win for the agency, which has long relied on disgorgement to strip alleged wrongdoers of ill-gotten gains in cases ranging from accounting and books-and-records violations to insider trading and broader fraud claims.

The practical takeaway is straightforward: the SEC retains a powerful remedial tool even where the connection between misconduct and a specific victim’s financial loss may be difficult to trace.

The U.S. Supreme Court has reaffirmed the Securities and Exchange Commission’s ability to seek disgorgement of ill-gotten gains in fraud cases, preserving a remedy that has long been central to the agency’s enforcement playbook. For securities litigators and compliance professionals, the ruling matters not just as a doctrinal win for the SEC, but as a practical confirmation that one of the agency’s strongest settlement and deterrence tools remains available.

Disgorgement allows the SEC to force defendants to give up profits allegedly obtained through unlawful conduct.

The SEC is pushing back after a federal judge raised concerns about its proposed settlement with Elon Musk, with the agency arguing the deal is lawful, appropriate, and consistent with its enforcement discretion. The dispute puts a spotlight on a recurring question in securities enforcement: how much scrutiny should courts apply when regulators negotiate resolutions with high-profile defendants?

At issue is the SEC’s effort to defend a settlement arrangement after the judge reportedly cited “red flags” in reviewing the proposal.

The SEC’s reported move to withdraw a judgment against the Winklevoss-linked crypto exchange Gemini marks one of the more consequential digital-asset enforcement developments now circulating in the legal market. Even without a fully public merits ruling to dissect, the significance is clear: a federal securities regulator appears to be stepping back from a previously obtained result in a high-profile crypto matter, underscoring how quickly the enforcement landscape can shift as policy priorities, litigation risk, and legal theories evolve.

For legal professionals, the immediate takeaway is not simply that one company may get relief.

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.

A federal judge in Washington, D.C., is signaling that a proposed SEC settlement tied to disclosures around Elon Musk’s earlier Twitter stock purchases may face a tougher path than the parties expected. In a recent hearing, the court reportedly identified “red flags” in the proposed resolution, raising the possibility that the deal will not be approved in its current form.

That alone makes the matter worth watching.

Federal prosecutors in Boston and the SEC have unsealed a closely watched insider-trading case alleging that confidential merger information was funneled from lawyers at elite law firms into a wider trading network. The government’s allegations center on Nicolo Nourafchan and Robert Yadgarov, and reportedly tie the flow of nonpublic deal information to attorneys associated with Goodwin Procter and Latham Watkins.

What makes this case stand out is not just the scale of the alleged trading scheme, but the source of the information.

Elon Musk has settled the SEC’s lawsuit over the timing of his 2022 disclosures about his initial Twitter stake, resolving one of the agency’s most closely watched beneficial-ownership reporting cases. Under the reported deal, a trust will pay a $1.5 million civil penalty, bringing to a close a dispute that tested how aggressively the SEC would pursue delayed Schedule 13D-style disclosures in a headline-making transaction.

The case centered on allegations that Musk did not timely disclose that he had crossed the 5% ownership threshold in Twitter stock, a milestone that can trigger federal reporting obligations for investors acquiring significant positions in public companies.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has chosen Gibson Dunn partner Joshua Woodcock to become Director of the Division of Enforcement, effective May 4, a move that gives the securities bar an early read on how the agency may approach investigations and charging decisions during a period of internal reorganization.

The appointment stands out not just because of who was selected, but because of when it is happening.

The April 2026 securities docket underscores a familiar but important reality for market participants: SEC enforcement remains broad, active, and strategically significant. Recent developments include the continuing federal court proceedings in SEC v. Musk, a $2.4 million settlement in an SEC fraud case involving a venture capital fund executive and related firms, and a steady stream of investor-protection and crypto-related disputes moving across multiple federal courts.

What makes this moment notable is not a single blockbuster filing, but the volume and diversity of active matters.