Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-1501_8n5a.pdf
Page Number: 8.0

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

5 

Opinion of the Court 

found for the SEC, granting an injunction barring petition-
ers from participating in the EB–5 Program and imposing
a civil penalty at the highest tier authorized.  Id., at 975, 
976.  It also ordered disgorgement equal to the full amount 
petitioners  had  raised  from  investors,  less  the  $234,899
that remained in the corporate accounts for the project.  Id., 
at 975–976. 

Petitioners objected that the disgorgement award failed
to account for their business expenses.  The District Court 
disagreed, concluding that the sum was a “reasonable ap-
proximation of the profits causally connected to [their] vio-
lation.”  Ibid.  The court ordered petitioners jointly and sev-
erally liable for the full amount that the SEC sought.  App.
to Pet. for Cert. 62a. 

The Ninth Circuit affirmed.  It acknowledged that Kokesh 
“expressly refused to reach” the issue whether the District
Court had  the authority to order  disgorgement.  754 Fed. 
Appx., at 509.  The court relied on Circuit precedent to con-
clude that the “proper amount of disgorgement in a scheme
such as this one is the entire amount raised less the money 
paid back to the investors.”  Ibid.; see also SEC v. JT Wal-
lenbrock & Assocs., 440 F. 3d 1109, 1113, 1114 (CA9 2006)
(reasoning that it would be “unjust to permit the defendants 
to offset . . . the expenses of running the very business they 
created to defraud . . . investors”).

We  granted  certiorari  to  determine  whether  §78u(d)(5) 
authorizes the SEC to seek disgorgement beyond a defend-
ant’s net profits from wrongdoing.  589 U. S. ___ (2019). 

II 
Our task is a familiar one.  In interpreting statutes like
§78u(d)(5) that provide for “equitable relief,” this Court an-
alyzes whether a particular remedy falls into “those catego-
ries  of  relief  that  were  typically  available  in  equity.” 
Mertens v. Hewitt Associates, 508 U. S. 248, 256 (1993); see 
also  CIGNA  Corp.  v.  Amara,  563  U. S.  421,  439  (2011);