Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-859new_kjfm.pdf
Page Number: 75.0

Cite as:  603 U. S. ____ (2024) 

15 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

to precedent significantly undermines this Court’s commit-
ment to stare decisis and the rule of law. 

This case may involve a different statute from Atlas Roof-
ing, but the schemes are remarkably similar.  Here, just as 
in Atlas Roofing, Congress identified a problem; concluded 
that the existing remedies were inadequate; and enacted a
new regulatory scheme as a solution.  The problem was a 
lack  of  transparency  and  accountability  in  the  securities 
market  that  contributed  to  the  Great  Depression  of  the 
1930s.  See ante, at 1.  The inadequate remedies were the 
then-existing state statutory and common-law fraud causes
of action.  The solution was a comprehensive federal scheme 
of  securities  regulation  consisting  of  the  Securities  Act  of 
1933, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the Invest-
ment Advisers Act of 1940.  See ibid.  In particular, Con-
gress  enacted  these  securities  laws  to  ensure  “full  disclo-
sure”  and  promote  ethical  business  practices  “in  the
securities  industry,”  SEC  v.  Capital  Gains  Research  Bu-
reau, Inc., 375 U. S. 180, 186 (1963), as well as to “protect 
investors  against  manipulation  of  stock  prices,”  Ernst  & 
Ernst v. Hochfelder, 425 U. S. 185, 195 (1976).

The  prophylactic  nature  of  the  statutory  regime  also  is
virtually indistinguishable from the OSHA scheme at issue
in Atlas Roofing.  Among other things, these securities laws
prohibit  the  misrepresentation  or  concealment  of  various
material facts through the imposition of federal registration
and disclosure requirements.  See ante, at 2.  Critically, fed-
eral-securities laws do not require proof of actual reliance 
on an investor’s misrepresentations or that an “investor has
actually suffered financial loss.”  Ante, at 4; see also SEC v. 
Life Partners Holdings, Inc. 854 F. 3d 765, 779 (CA5 2017); 
SEC v. Blavin, 760 F. 2d 706, 711 (CA6 1985) (per curiam).
OSHA too prohibits conduct that could, but does not neces-
sarily, injure a private person.  Atlas Roofing, 430 U. S., at 
445 (OSHA remedies “exis[t] whether or not an employee is