Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-859new_kjfm.pdf
Page Number: 14

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

9 

Opinion of the Court 

court.  The developer responded by invoking his right to a 
jury  trial.    Although  the  cause  of  action  arose  under  the
Clean  Water  Act,  the  Court  surveyed  early  cases  to  show 
that the statutory nature of the claim was not legally rele-
vant.  “Actions by the Government to recover civil penalties
under  statutory  provisions,”  we  explained,  “historically 
ha[d]  been  viewed  as  [a]  type  of  action  in  debt  requiring 
trial by jury.”  Id., at 418–419.  To determine whether a suit 
is legal in nature, we directed courts to consider the cause 
of action and the remedy it provides.  Since some causes of 
action sound in both law and equity, we concluded that the 
remedy was the “more important” consideration.  Id., at 421 
(brackets and internal quotation marks omitted); see id., at 
418–421. 

In  this  case,  the  remedy  is  all  but  dispositive.  For  re-
spondents’  alleged  fraud,  the  SEC  seeks  civil  penalties,  a 
form of monetary relief.  While monetary relief can be legal 
or equitable, money damages are the prototypical common
law  remedy.  See  Mertens  v.  Hewitt  Associates,  508  U. S. 
248,  255  (1993).    What  determines  whether  a  monetary 
remedy  is  legal  is  if  it  is  designed  to  punish  or  deter  the 
wrongdoer, or, on the other hand, solely to “restore the sta-
tus  quo.”  Tull,  481  U. S.,  at  422.    As  we  have  previously 
explained, “a civil sanction that cannot fairly be said solely 
to  serve  a  remedial  purpose,  but  rather  can  only  be  ex-
plained as also serving either retributive or deterrent pur-
poses, is punishment.”  Austin v.  United States, 509 U. S. 
602,  610  (1993)  (internal  quotation  marks  omitted).    And 
while courts of equity could order a defendant to return un-
justly  obtained  funds,  only  courts  of  law  issued  monetary 
penalties to “punish culpable individuals.”  Tull, 481 U. S., 
at 422.  Applying these principles, we have recognized that 
“civil penalt[ies are] a type of remedy at common law that
could only be enforced in courts of law.”  Ibid.  The same is 
true here. 

To start, the Securities Exchange Act and the Investment