Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20-222_2c83.pdf
Page Number: 24

Cite as:  594 U. S. ____ (2021) 

5 

Opinion of GORSUCH, J. 

and the publicity of the misstatement—gives rise to a “pre-
sumption” of reliance.  See id., at 248, and n. 27.  After such 
a showing, the Court continued, a defendant may then pro-
ceed to “rebut the presumption.”  Id., at 248.  Nowhere in 
any of this did Basic suggest the order of operations govern-
ing its presumption should differ in any way from those gov-
erning  others  commonly  found  in  the  law  and  subject  to
Rule 301.  Nor is there any doubt which party has the bur-
den of persuasion on the question of reliance in securities 
fraud cases like ours.  From start to finish, the plaintiff has 
the  burden  to  satisfy  that  essential  element  of  its  claim. 
Basic’s  presumption  of  reliance  thus  “does  not  shift”  any 
burden  of  persuasion—that  always  “remains”  with  the
plaintiff.  Fed.  Rule  Evid.  301;  see  also  St.  Mary’s  Honor 
Center, 509 U. S., at 506–508. 

Consider  how  all  this  works  in  routine  securities  fraud 
cases.  Once  a  plaintiff  proves  the  four  “predicate  facts” 
Basic specified, see supra, at 1, a presumption of reliance
attaches.  At that point, the defendant bears the burden of
producing evidence that, if believed, would support a find-
ing that the plaintiff did not actually rely on its alleged mis-
representation.  As we have seen, a defendant might do so 
by producing evidence suggesting that its alleged misrepre-
sentation did not have an impact on market price or that 
the plaintiff was indifferent to the alleged misrepresenta-
tion.  Upon  such  a  showing,  the  presumption  of  reliance
drops  from  the  case  and  the  trier  of  fact  must  decide  the 
question of reliance vel non, cognizant of the fact the plain-
tiff bears the burden of proving reliance like any other es-
sential elements of its claim.  Again, that does not mean the 
plaintiff ’s indirect proof disappears.  A court may still infer 
from  the  Basic  predicates  that  a  particular  misstatement 
was incorporated into the stock price and that the plaintiff
relied on the integrity of that price.  Both sides are free to 
present  additional  proof  too.  It’s  simply  that  a  court  no 
longer must find reliance.  See St. Mary’s Honor Center, 509