Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20-222_2c83.pdf
Page Number: 21

2  GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP, INC. v. ARKANSAS TEACHER 

RETIREMENT SYSTEM 
Opinion of GORSUCH, J. 

(Halliburton II).

The  presumption  of  reliance  not  only  helps  a  plaintiff 
prove  one  of  the  essential  elements  of  a  securities  fraud 
claim.  Certain class actions require that “questions of law 
or  fact  common  to  class  members  predominate  over  any 
questions  affecting  only  individual  members.”    Fed.  Rule 
Civ. Proc. 23(b)(3).  So to the extent a court is able to pre-
sume reliance by everyone who purchased an affected stock, 
Basic  can  help  avoid  individualized  questions  that  other-
wise might stand in the way of proceeding with a securities
fraud action on a classwide basis.  Erica P. John Fund, Inc. 
v. Halliburton Co., 563 U. S. 804, 809–811 (2011) (Hallibur-
ton I).

At  the  same  time,  Basic’s  presumption  of  reliance  has
only ever been just that.  Everyone accepts that, if a defend-
ant undermines one of the assumptions on which it rests, 
the presumption dissipates.  So, for example, if the defend-
ant’s alleged misrepresentation did not actually affect the 
market price, there can be no ground for presuming anyone
relied  on  that  misrepresentation  when  purchasing  the 
stock.  Halliburton II, 573 U. S., at 279.  Similarly, if a par-
ticular plaintiff did not care about the integrity of the mar-
ket price when purchasing a stock, there is no basis for pre-
suming that individual’s reliance.  Id., at 276. 

Before  us,  the  only  meaningful  dispute  concerns  what
burden  a  defendant  bears  when  it  comes  to  rebutting  the 
Basic presumption.  Does the defendant carry only a burden 
of production, or does the defendant sometimes carry a bur-
den of persuasion?  In my view, only a burden of production 
is involved. 

Start  with  what  we  have  said  about  presumptions  like 
Basic’s.  This Court has long recognized that a “ ‘ “presump-
tion” properly used refers only to a device for allocating the
production burden.’ ”  Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. 
Burdine,  450  U. S.  248,  255,  n. 8  (1981).    Throughout  the
law,  courts  have  sometimes  created  presumptions  to  help