Sidley Secures Unanimous Supreme Court Victory Reinforcing Constitutional Venue Protections
Sidley secured a significant victory in the U.S. Supreme Court for Ahmad Abouammo in a case addressing the constitutional limits on where federal criminal prosecutions may be brought. In a unanimous opinion, the Supreme Court held that Mr. Abouammo should not have been charged and tried in the Northern District of California for crimes which occurred elsewhere. The case is one of the most important recent decisions regarding venue: the Court’s ruling reinforces the Constitution’s venue protections and limits the government’s ability to prosecute defendants in forums disconnected from their alleged conduct.
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.
Ninth Circuit Vacates Insider Trading Conviction Over Court’s Failure to Investigate Juror Bias
On April 21, 2026, a Ninth Circuit panel vacated an insider trading conviction in United States v. Bolandian, holding that the trial court failed to properly investigate a juror who admitted he was “not sure” he could remain impartial. The case involved a Los Angeles trader accused of profiting from confidential merger tips, resulting in a conviction and 24-month sentence. But on appeal, the court found plain error in allowing the uncertain juror—who ultimately served as foreperson—to remain without further inquiry. Emphasizing the court’s independent duty to ensure juror impartiality, the decision underscores that even without a defense objection, unresolved bias concerns can mandate a new trial—offering both a cautionary note and a safeguard for defense counsel.
