Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-1501_8n5a.pdf
Page Number: 32.0

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

9 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

petitioner’s  profits.  Second,  the  order  should  not  be  im-
posed jointly and severally.  Third, the money paid by peti-
tioners should be used to compensate petitioners’ victims. 

A 
First,  the  disgorgement  order  should  be  limited  to  “the
profits actually made” by each petitioner.  Mowry v. Whit-
ney, 14 Wall. 620, 649 (1872); see also ante, at 11, 18–20. 
Defendants in equity traditionally may deduct “allowances 
. . .  for  the  cost  and  expense  of  the  business”  from  the
amount of the award.  Root v. Railway Co., 105 U. S. 189, 
215 (1882); see also Callaghan v. Myers, 128 U. S. 617, 665 
(1888); Elizabeth v. Pavement Co., 97 U. S. 126, 139 (1878); 
Rubber Co. v. Goodyear, 9 Wall. 788, 804 (1870).  The ra-
tionale  behind  this  rule  is  that  “it  is  not  the  function  of 
courts of equity to administer punishment.”  Bangor Punta 
Operations,  Inc.  v.  Bangor  &  Aroostook  R.  Co.,  417  U. S. 
703, 717–718, n. 14 (1974) (internal quotation marks omit-
ted); see also 2 J. Story, Commentaries on Equity Jurispru-
dence  §1494,  p. 819  (13th  ed.  1886).    Here,  however,  the 
District Court reasoned that “it would be ‘unjust to permit 
the  defendants  to  offset  against  the  investor  dollars  they
received the expenses of running the very business they cre-
ated to defraud those investors into giving the defendants
the money in the first place.’ ”  754 Fed. Appx. 505, 509 (CA9 
2018)  (quoting  SEC  v.  J. T.  Wallenbrock  &  Assocs.,  440 
F. 3d 1109, 1114 (CA9 2006)).  On remand, the lower courts 
should limit the award to each petitioner’s profits. 

B 
Second, and relatedly, the disgorgement order should not 
be imposed jointly and severally.  The majority analogizes
disgorgement to accounting, ante, at 6, but this Court has 
rejected joint and several liability in actions for an account-
ing.  Elizabeth, supra, at 139–140; Keystone Mfg. Co. v. Ad-
ams, 151 U. S. 139, 148 (1894); Belknap v. Schild, 161 U. S.