Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20-222_2c83.pdf
Page Number: 28

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

9 

Opinion of GORSUCH, J. 

all, “[o]ur duty is to follow the law as we find it, not to follow 
rotely whatever lower courts might once have said about it.” 
BP p.l.c. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 593 U. S. 
___, ___–___ (2021) (slip op., at 11–12).  The fact remains 
that nothing in our prior decisions has ever placed a burden
of persuasion on the defendant with respect to any aspect
of  the  plaintiff ’s  case.    It  is  incumbent  on  the  plaintiff  to
prove reliance, not the defendant to disprove it.  If a major-
ity of the Court today really believes some novel new bur-
den  of  persuasion  should  be  placed  on  the  defendant,  it 
ought to say so.  Past decisions—by this Court or others—
cannot be blamed for today’s result.

Perhaps recognizing the incongruity of its conclusion, the 
Court goes out of its way to downplay its significance.  We’re 
told  that  “on  the  ground”  today’s  holding  “is  unlikely  to 
make much difference” because “[i]n most securities-fraud 
class actions . . . the plaintiffs and defendants submit com-
peting expert evidence on price impact.”  Ante, at 12.  And 
in cases like these, “[t]he district court’s task,” according to
the Court, “is simply to assess all the evidence of price im-
pact” and “determine whether it is more likely than not that 
the alleged misrepresentations had a price impact.”  Ibid. 
This is a curious disavowal.  Obviously, the Court thinks
the issue important enough to spend the time and effort to
rejigger  the  burden  of  persuasion.    Now,  though,  it  says
none of this matters because most cases come down to a dis-
pute over evidence of price impact irrespective of the pre-
sumption.  The Court’s suggestion that the burden of per-
suasion will “rarely” make a “difference” misses the point 
too.  The whole reason we allocate the burden of persuasion 
is to resolve close cases by providing a tie breaker where the 
burden does make a difference.  That close cases may not be
common ones is no justification for indifference about how 
the law resolves them. 

Respectfully, I dissent.