Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-1501_8n5a.pdf
Page Number: 28.0

Cite as:  591 U. S. ____ (2020) 

5 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

remed[y],” based on its “inherent equity power” and a belief 
that “the congressional purpose is effectuated by so doing.” 
312 F. Supp., at 91.  But the sources it cited are dubious. 
The court  relied on J. I. Case Co.  v. Borak, 377 U. S. 426 
(1964), a case about implied causes of action that we have
since abrogated.  See Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U. S. 275, 
287 (2001).  It also relied on a securities law treatise that 
advocated for what it called “restitution” but admitted that 
district courts had no express authority to grant the remedy 
and that the SEC had never sought this remedy in the past.
3  L.  Loss,  Securities  Regulation  1827–1828  (1961).    It  is 
functionally this same unauthorized remedy that the SEC
and courts now call “disgorgement.”  The details have var-
ied over time, but the lineage is clear: Disgorgement is “a 
relic of the heady days” of courts inserting judicially created
relief into statutes.  Correctional Services Corp. v. Malesko, 
534 U. S. 61, 75 (2001) (Scalia, J., concurring).

Disgorgement as a remedy in its own right is also absent 
from legal publications until the 20th century.  Leading le-
gal dictionaries did not define the term until the turn of the 
20th  century.  See,  e.g.,  Merriam-Webster’s  Dictionary  of 
Law 143 (1996); Black’s Law Dictionary 480 (7th ed. 1999).
Nor was disgorgement included in the first Restatement of
Restitution, adopted in 1936.  The remedy does not appear
until the Third Restatement, adopted in 2010, which states
that “[r]estitution remedies” that seek “to eliminate profit 
from wrongdoing . . . are often called ‘disgorgement’ or ‘ac-
counting.’ ”  2 Restatement (Third) of Restitution and Un-
just  Enrichment  §51(4),  p.  203.    But  “Restatement”  is  an 
inapt title for this edition of the treatise.  Like many of the
modern  Restatements,  its  “authors  have  abandoned  the 
mission of describing the law, and have chosen instead to 
set  forth  their  aspirations  for  what  the  law  ought  to  be.” 
Kansas v. Nebraska, 574 U. S. 445, 475 (2015) (Scalia, J.,
concurring in part and dissenting in part).  The inclusion of