SCOTUS Oral Arguments · April 20 · 1 hr 10 min

Sripetch v. SEC

Sripetch v. SEC, No. 25-466 Argued on Apr 20 2026. For petitioner: Daniel L. Geyser, Dallas, Tex. For respondent: Malcolm L. Stewart, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. Question Presented: This case presents a clear and acknowledged conflict over an exceptionally important question regarding the SEC's civil-enforcement power. In Liu v. SEC, 591 U.S. 71 (2020), this Court held the SEC may seek equitable "disgorgement" in civil-enforcement actions if an award "does not exceed a wrongdoer's net profits" and "is awarded for victims ." 591 U.S. at 74- 75 (emphasis added). In the proceedings below, the Ninth Circuit held that investors can be ''victims" for disgorgement purposes despite not suffering pecuniary harm. In so holding, the Ninth Circuit recognized a direct "split" on this question, "reject[ed] the reasoning of the Second Circuit," and "joined the First Circuit in holding that a finding of pecuniary harm is not required." This statutory holding was the sole basis of the Ninth Circuit's decision, and it leaves the SEC's enforcement power in disarray: disgorgement requests are ubiquitous in SEC actions, and there are now conflicting rules in the two main circuits (the Second and Ninth) where enforcement actions are most prominent. There are millions (if not billions) of dollars at stake. The question presented is: Whether the SEC may seek equitable disgorgement under 15 U.S.C. 78u(d)(5) and (d)(7) without showing investors suffered pecuniary harm . Oral Argument Links: SCOTUS Oral Argument Page Transcript PDF Docket Links: SCOTUS Docket Page Question Presented Petition for a Writ of Certiorari (White Br.) Brief in Opposition (Orange Br.) Reply Brief in Support of Petition (Tan Br.) Petitioner's Brief on the Merits (Blue Br.) Respondent's Brief on the Merits (Red Br.) Petitioner's Reply Brief on the Merits (Yellow Br.) Chapters: (00:00:00) Case Call (00:00:07) ORAL ARGUMENT OF DANIEL L. GEYSER (00:40:34) ORAL ARGUMENT OF MALCOLM L. STEWART (01:07:30) REBUTTAL ARGUMENT OF DANIEL L. GEYSER Disclosure, Disclaimer, and Credits: Independent feed. NOT affiliated with the Supreme Court of the United States or any other entity. Audio files from and links to the Supreme Court of the United States' website. Image credit to Ian Hutchinson, https://unsplash.com/photos/U8WfiRpsQ7Y

0:00-1:10:56

Play in

transcript

No transcript — this publisher did not publish one.

show notes

Sripetch v. SEC, No. 25-466

Argued on Apr 20 2026.

For petitioner: Daniel L. Geyser, Dallas, Tex. For respondent: Malcolm L. Stewart, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C.

Question Presented:

This case presents a clear and acknowledged conflict over an exceptionally important question regarding the SEC's civil-enforcement power. In Liu v. SEC, 591 U.S. 71 (2020), this Court held the SEC may seek equitable "disgorgement" in civil-enforcement actions if an award "does not exceed a wrongdoer's net profits" and "is awarded for victims ." 591 U.S. at 74- 75 (emphasis added). In the proceedings below, the Ninth Circuit held that investors can be ''victims" for disgorgement purposes despite not suffering pecuniary harm. In so holding, the Ninth Circuit recognized a direct "split" on this question, "reject[ed] the reasoning of the Second Circuit," and "joined the First Circuit in holding that a finding of pecuniary harm is not required." This statutory holding was the sole basis of the Ninth Circuit's decision, and it leaves the SEC's enforcement power in disarray: disgorgement requests are ubiquitous in SEC actions, and there are now conflicting rules in the two main circuits (the Second and Ninth) where enforcement actions are most prominent. There are millions (if not billions) of dollars at stake. The question presented is: Whether the SEC may seek equitable disgorgement under 15 U.S.C. 78u(d)(5) and (d)(7) without showing investors suffered pecuniary harm .

Oral Argument Links: