Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-1501_8n5a.pdf
Page Number: 24.0

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

1 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 18–1501 
_________________ 

CHARLES C. LIU, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. 
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 
APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT 

[June 22, 2020] 

JUSTICE THOMAS, dissenting. 
The Court correctly declines to affirm the Ninth Circuit’s
decision upholding the District Court’s disgorgement order, 
but  I  disagree  with  the  Court’s  decision  to  vacate  and  re-
mand  for  the  lower  courts  to  “limi[t]”  the  disgorgement
award.  Ante, at 1.  Disgorgement can never be awarded un-
der 15 U. S. C. §78u(d)(5).  That statute authorizes the Se-
curities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to seek only “eq-
uitable relief that may be appropriate or necessary for the 
benefit of investors,” and disgorgement is not a traditional 
equitable remedy.  Thus, I would reverse the judgment of 
the Court of Appeals. 

I 

The  Securities  Exchange  Act  of  1934,  as  amended  in 
2005, allows the SEC to request “equitable relief ” in federal 
district  court  against  those  who  violate  federal  securities 
laws.  §78u(d)(5).  According to our usual interpretive con-
vention, “equitable relief ” refers to forms of equitable relief
available in the English Court of Chancery at the time of 
the  founding.  Because  disgorgement  is  a  creation  of  the
20th century, it is not properly characterized as “equitable
relief,” and, hence, the District Court was not authorized to 
award it under §78u(d)(5).