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 is set to hear a challenge involving the prolonged detention of certain noncitizens, placing renewed focus on the constitutional and statutory limits of immigration custody. The dispute arises against a backdrop of increasingly aggressive immigration enforcement and longstanding tension over how long the federal government may detain individuals without providing a meaningful bond hearing or other procedural safeguard.

At issue is not just detention policy, but the scope of executive authority in immigration administration and the role of the courts in policing that authority.

The Supreme Court in early June handed the Federal Communications Commission an important administrative-law win, rejecting a challenge by ATT and Verizon to the agency’s process for imposing telecom fines. The ruling preserves a key piece of the FCC’s enforcement toolkit and, just as notably, suggests the Court is not prepared to automatically extend its recent hostility toward some forms of agency adjudication into every regulatory setting.

The dispute centered on whether the FCC’s in-house enforcement mechanism for monetary penalties runs afoul of constitutional limits that have drawn increasing scrutiny in recent years.

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.

In a unanimous opinion by Justice Gorsuch, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment below in No. 25-466, with Justice Thomas filing a concurrence. Although the Court’s disposition is straightforward on its face, the opinion matters because it reinforces the Court’s current approach to appellate review: close attention to text, procedural posture, and the limited role of higher courts in revisiting questions not properly preserved or presented.

The Court’s holding was simple: the lower court’s judgment stands.

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 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 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.

In a short but noteworthy unanimous decision issued on May 28, 2026, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment below in No. 24-935, with Justice Gorsuch writing for the Court. Although the Court’s disposition is formally simple—“AFFIRMED”—the opinion matters because unanimous Supreme Court affirmances often clarify how lower courts and litigants should understand the boundaries of appellate review, statutory interpretation, or the proper framework for resolving recurring procedural disputes.

Based on the Court’s action, the key takeaway for practitioners is straightforward: the Supreme Court found no reversible error in the lower court’s reasoning or result, and the opinion now carries precedential weight because it was issued as a signed opinion of the Court rather than as an unexplained summary disposition.

The U.S. Supreme Court has unanimously rejected Mexico’s effort to hold American gun manufacturers liable for cartel violence, shutting down a closely watched suit that sought roughly $10 billion in damages. The decision is a significant win for the firearms industry and a forceful reaffirmation of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, or PLCAA, the federal statute that broadly shields gunmakers and sellers from many civil claims arising from criminal misuse of their products.

Mexico had argued that U.S. manufacturers and distributors knowingly facilitated illegal trafficking by designing, marketing, and distributing firearms in ways that predictably supplied cartel networks.

The U.S. Supreme Court closed out a closely watched cross-border liability fight this week by unanimously rejecting Mexico’s effort to hold American gun manufacturers responsible for firearm trafficking and cartel violence south of the border.

The U.S. Supreme Court has approved a settlement ending the long-running dispute over Rio Grande water allocations among Texas, New Mexico, and Colorado, with the United States also participating in the case. The decree resolves one of the Court’s highest-profile original-jurisdiction water fights and establishes the framework for how water deliveries from New Mexico to Texas will be handled going forward.

The litigation centered on the Rio Grande Compact, an interstate agreement governing allocation of river water.

In a 6-3 decision issued May 28, 2026, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment below in docket 24-820, with Justice Barrett writing for the Court. Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh joined the majority. Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justice Kagan, concurred in the judgment, while Justice Jackson dissented. opinion<-a>_of_the_Court_in_which_Roberts_C_J_and_Thomas_Alito_Gorsuch_and_Kavanaugh_JJ_joined_Sotomayor_J_filed_an_opinion_concurring_in_the_judgment_in_which_Kagan_J_joined_Jackson_J_filed_a_dissenting_opinion_VIDED/'>View full case on Docket Alarm.

Although the docket text provided here does not identify the parties or summarize the underlying dispute, the alignment of the opinions is still revealing.

In a 6-3 decision authored by Justice Barrett, the Supreme Court affirmed the lower court and reinforced a familiar theme of the current Term: when Congress channels review into a specific statutory scheme, lower federal courts may not use more general equitable or habeas theories to work around it. Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justice Kagan, concurred only in the judgment, while Justice Jackson dissented.

The Court’s opinion focused less on the underlying immigration dispute than on where and how such claims may be brought.