Supreme Court Rules for SEC on Disgorgement Awards
In a win for the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled today in Sripetch v. SEC, No. 25-466 (June 4, 2026) that an SEC disgorgement award does not require proof of pecuniary loss by investors. The case involved the new statutory disgorgement remedy (in Exchange Act Section 21(d)(7)) that Congress added in 2021, following the Supreme Court’s decisions in Kokesh and Liu, which together curtailed the SEC’s disgorgement remedy by subjecting it to statutory time limits and equitable constraints.
The practical result is that the SEC will have a somewhat easier time obtaining disgorgement awards in future enforcement cases. But the Supreme Court’s decision explicitly left open a number of interesting questions: whether the equitable constraints identified in Liu apply to the new statutory disgorgement remedy (the Court assumed here that they do), whether disgorgement is available when it is infeasible to distribute funds to investors, and whether the Seventh Amendment jury trial right under Jarkesy is implicated by the disgorgement remedy. How the SEC pursues disgorgement awards going forward may implicate all those questions and lead to future litigation. We’ll be watching closely.
Back Before the Fifth Circuit: DOJ Appeals Another FCPA Acquittal
On May 8, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice appealed Judge Kenneth Hoyt’s post-verdict acquittal in the FCPA prosecution of Ramón Alexandro Rovirosa Martínez, setting up what could become a significant Fifth Circuit decision on both double jeopardy and the use of translated foreign language evidence in federal criminal trials.
Although a Houston jury convicted Rovirosa in December 2025 on conspiracy and substantive FCPA charges tied to alleged bribery of officials at Mexico’s state-owned oil company, Pemex, Judge Hoyt later vacated the convictions, concluding that the Government’s reliance on certified English translations of Spanish language communications violated the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause because the translators themselves did not testify.
The appeal raises potentially consequential questions about whether post-verdict acquittals can be reviewed without violating double jeopardy protections, and whether certified translations of foreign language communications are “testimonial” statements requiring live confrontation. This blog post explores those issues and places the appeal in the broader context of the Fifth Circuit’s continuing scrutiny of major FCPA decisions.
Supreme Court’s First Choice Decision May Expand Federal Court Options to Recipients of State Attorney General CIDs
The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, Inc. v. Davenport may create a new strategic consideration for recipients of state attorney general civil investigative demands (CIDs). In a unanimous opinion, the Court held that a nonprofit could pursue a Section 1983 challenge to a New Jersey Attorney General subpoena in federal court based on alleged First Amendment associational harms arising from compelled donor disclosure.
Although the Court emphasized the narrow nature of its holding, the decision potentially opens the door to federal court challenges where state attorney general CIDs implicate donor anonymity, expressive association, advocacy activities, or other constitutional interests. The ruling also reflects the Court’s continued willingness to recognize Article III standing based on alleged chilling effects tied to First Amendment rights.
Our latest post examines the decision, the arguments raised by a coalition of state attorneys general, and what the ruling may mean for companies, nonprofits, trade associations, and other recipients of state attorney general investigative demands.
Seventh Circuit Orders Release of Sidley Client
On April 14, 2026, a Seventh Circuit panel took the rare step of ordering the immediate release of Sidley client Anne Pramaggiore from federal custody pending a new trial. Pramaggiore, the former CEO of Commonwealth Edison, was convicted in May 2023 of charges including violations of the federal programs bribery statute (18 U.S.C. § 666), violations of books-and-records provisions of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), and conspiracy. Following the Supreme Court’s decision in Snyder v. United States, 603 U.S. 1 (2024), the District Court vacated the bribery convictions but left the remaining convictions intact. On appeal, the Seventh Circuit panel indicated that because two of the alleged objects of the conspiracy were invalid following Snyder, the jury returned a general verdict form not specifying what object of the conspiracy it found the defendants agreed to commit, and the jury had received a co-conspirator liability instruction (commonly known as a Pinkerton instruction) over a defense objection, it would be impossible to tell whether the remaining convictions rested on valid or invalid grounds. A full written opinion is expected to follow.
Sidley’s Loss-Eaton Making Supreme Court Debut in Saudi Spy Case
Sidley partner Tobias Loss-Eaton is set to argue his first case before the U.S. Supreme Court, representing a former Twitter employee convicted of spying for Saudi Arabia. The case centers on whether federal prosecutors brought an obstruction charge in the proper venue, raising broader constitutional questions about where criminal cases can be tried. Loss-Eaton, who helped bring the case to the Court through Northwestern’s Supreme Court clinic, now prepares to make his debut at the lectern in a closely watched dispute over the limits of federal venue law.
Sidley Wins Landmark Ruling: Port Authority No Longer Shielded by Sovereign Immunity in Federal Court
Sidley achieved a breakthrough appellate win that fundamentally alters how the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey — and similar bistate agencies — can be sued. In Baroni v. Port Authority, the Second Circuit took the unusual step of issuing a “mini en banc” ruling to reverse its own long-standing precedent and strip the Port Authority of the sovereign immunity shield it has long used to avoid state-law claims in federal court.
