Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-1501_8n5a.pdf
Page Number: 6.0

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

3 

Opinion of the Court 

courts  have  continued  to  award  it.   See  SEC  v.  Common-
wealth  Chemical  Securities,  Inc.,  574  F. 2d  90,  95  (CA2
1978)  (explaining  that,  when  a  court  awards  “[d]isgorge-
ment of profits in an action brought by the SEC,” it is “ex-
ercising  the  chancellor’s  discretion  to  prevent  unjust  en-
richment”); see also SEC v. Blatt, 583 F. 2d 1325, 1335 (CA5 
1978);  SEC  v.  Washington  Cty.  Util.  Dist.,  676  F. 2d  218, 
227 (CA6 1982).

In Kokesh, this Court determined that disgorgement con-
stituted a “penalty” for the purposes of 28 U. S. C. §2462,
which establishes a 5-year statute of limitations for “an ac-
tion, suit or proceeding for the enforcement of any civil fine, 
penalty, or forfeiture.”  The Court reached this conclusion 
based on several considerations, namely, that disgorgement 
is imposed as a consequence of violating public laws, it is 
assessed in part for punitive purposes, and in many cases, 
the award is not compensatory.  581 U. S., at ___–___ (slip 
op., at 7–9).  But the Court did not address whether a §2462 
penalty can nevertheless qualify as “equitable relief ” under 
§78u(d)(5), given that equity never “lends its aid to enforce 
a  forfeiture  or  penalty.”  Marshall  v.  Vicksburg,  15  Wall. 
146,  149  (1873).    The  Court  cautioned,  moreover,  that  its 
decision  should  not  be  interpreted  “as  an  opinion  on 
whether courts possess authority to order disgorgement in
SEC enforcement proceedings.”  Kokesh, 581 U. S., at ___, 
n. 3 (slip op., at 5, n. 3).  This question is now squarely be-
fore the Court. 

—————— 
The dissent also observes the solid equitable roots of an accounting for 
profits, post, at 3; accord, infra, at 6 (discussing the equitable origins of 
the accounting remedy), a remedy closely resembling disgorgement, see 
infra, at 8–9.  In any event, casting aside a form of relief solely “based on 
the particular label affixed to [it] would ‘elevate form over substance,’ ” 
Aetna Health Inc. v. Davila, 542 U. S. 200, 214 (2004), leaving unresolved 
the question before us: whether the underlying profits-based award con-
forms to equity practice.