The U.S. Supreme Court has reaffirmed the Securities and Exchange Commission’s ability to seek disgorgement of ill-gotten gains in fraud cases, preserving a remedy that has long been central to the agency’s enforcement playbook. For securities litigators and compliance professionals, the ruling matters not just as a doctrinal win for the SEC, but as a practical confirmation that one of the agency’s strongest settlement and deterrence tools remains available.

Disgorgement allows the SEC to force defendants to give up profits allegedly obtained through unlawful conduct.

In a short but noteworthy unanimous decision issued on May 28, 2026, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment below in No. 24-935, with Justice Gorsuch writing for the Court. Although the Court’s disposition is formally simple—“AFFIRMED”—the opinion matters because unanimous Supreme Court affirmances often clarify how lower courts and litigants should understand the boundaries of appellate review, statutory interpretation, or the proper framework for resolving recurring procedural disputes.

Based on the Court’s action, the key takeaway for practitioners is straightforward: the Supreme Court found no reversible error in the lower court’s reasoning or result, and the opinion now carries precedential weight because it was issued as a signed opinion of the Court rather than as an unexplained summary disposition.

The U.S. Supreme Court has unanimously rejected Mexico’s effort to hold American gun manufacturers liable for cartel violence, shutting down a closely watched suit that sought roughly $10 billion in damages. The decision is a significant win for the firearms industry and a forceful reaffirmation of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, or PLCAA, the federal statute that broadly shields gunmakers and sellers from many civil claims arising from criminal misuse of their products.

Mexico had argued that U.S. manufacturers and distributors knowingly facilitated illegal trafficking by designing, marketing, and distributing firearms in ways that predictably supplied cartel networks.

The U.S. Supreme Court closed out a closely watched cross-border liability fight this week by unanimously rejecting Mexico’s effort to hold American gun manufacturers responsible for firearm trafficking and cartel violence south of the border.

The U.S. Supreme Court has approved a settlement ending the long-running dispute over Rio Grande water allocations among Texas, New Mexico, and Colorado, with the United States also participating in the case. The decree resolves one of the Court’s highest-profile original-jurisdiction water fights and establishes the framework for how water deliveries from New Mexico to Texas will be handled going forward.

The litigation centered on the Rio Grande Compact, an interstate agreement governing allocation of river water.

In a 6-3 decision issued May 28, 2026, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment below in docket 24-820, with Justice Barrett writing for the Court. Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh joined the majority. Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justice Kagan, concurred in the judgment, while Justice Jackson dissented. opinion<-a>_of_the_Court_in_which_Roberts_C_J_and_Thomas_Alito_Gorsuch_and_Kavanaugh_JJ_joined_Sotomayor_J_filed_an_opinion_concurring_in_the_judgment_in_which_Kagan_J_joined_Jackson_J_filed_a_dissenting_opinion_VIDED/'>View full case on Docket Alarm.

Although the docket text provided here does not identify the parties or summarize the underlying dispute, the alignment of the opinions is still revealing.

In a 6-3 decision authored by Justice Barrett, the Supreme Court affirmed the lower court and reinforced a familiar theme of the current Term: when Congress channels review into a specific statutory scheme, lower federal courts may not use more general equitable or habeas theories to work around it. Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justice Kagan, concurred only in the judgment, while Justice Jackson dissented.

The Court’s opinion focused less on the underlying immigration dispute than on where and how such claims may be brought.

The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear Eli Lilly’s constitutional challenge to the False Claims Act’s qui tam mechanism, preserving one of the government’s most potent civil fraud enforcement tools. The petition arose from litigation brought by whistleblower Ronald Streck, who accused Lilly of misconduct tied to Medicaid drug rebate reporting.

By denying review, the Court leaves in place lower-court rulings that allowed the case to proceed and, more broadly, avoids reopening a recurring defense-side attack on the False Claims Act’s structure.

The U.S. Supreme Court has granted emergency relief that keeps nationwide access to mifepristone by telemedicine and mail in place while litigation over the FDA’s regulatory approach moves forward. The order does not resolve the merits, but it preserves the current framework for prescribing and distributing the abortion pill for now — an important signal in a dispute with consequences well beyond reproductive health.

The underlying case challenges FDA decisions that allowed broader access to mifepristone, including dispensing through the mail and via telehealth.

The U.S. Supreme Court has handed climate plaintiffs a meaningful procedural win, ruling that Enbridge could not remove a climate-related suit to federal court after the statutory deadline had passed. The Court rejected Enbridge’s argument that the removal clock under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1) could be equitably tolled, leaving the case where it began: state court.

That may sound like a narrow civil-procedure dispute, but for litigators following energy and environmental cases, it is a consequential one.

The U.S. Supreme Court has temporarily preserved broader access to mifepristone, blocking a lower-court ruling that would have allowed Idaho to enforce restrictions affecting the abortion pill while the litigation moves forward. The order does not resolve the merits, but it keeps the status quo in place and signals that the justices remain deeply engaged in how post-Dobbs abortion disputes intersect with federal drug regulation.

The immediate legal question is narrower than the broader political debate: how far can a state go in limiting access to an FDA-approved drug when that access is also shaped by federal regulatory decisions? That tension has become a central battleground since Dobbs, especially where states seek to impose restrictions that may conflict with the FDA’s approval framework, labeling decisions, and distribution rules.

For litigators, the Court’s temporary intervention is a reminder that emergency relief in reproductive-rights cases can effectively determine access on the ground long before a final merits ruling.

The U.S. Supreme Court appears inclined to further restrict federal agencies’ ability to impose monetary penalties through in-house proceedings, with oral argument suggesting meaningful support for telecom companies challenging the FCC’s fining process. If that instinct becomes doctrine, the decision could reshape not only communications enforcement, but also the broader administrative enforcement toolkit used across the federal government.

The dispute centers on whether the FCC may assess fines administratively against regulated entities such as ATT and Verizon, or whether the Constitution requires those claims to be tried before a jury in federal court.

The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to pause a lower-court order holding Apple in contempt in its long-running fight with Epic Games, a procedural move that keeps immediate pressure on Apple while the broader dispute over App Store payment rules continues.

The order stems from the remedy phase of the Epic litigation, where Apple was previously directed to loosen restrictions affecting how app developers communicate alternative payment options to users.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday left in place, for now, lower-court rulings that allow the mailing of the abortion pill mifepristone to continue while litigation proceeds. The order preserves the status quo in one of the most closely watched administrative-law and reproductive-rights disputes in the country, avoiding an immediate change to how patients and providers access medication abortion.

At a practical level, the Court’s action means that providers, pharmacies, and telehealth platforms may continue relying on the current federal framework that permits distribution by mail, rather than shifting abruptly to a more restrictive regime.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s refusal to hear appeals arising from Ohio’s House Bill 6 scandal leaves in place lower-court rulings tied to one of the largest public-corruption prosecutions in recent state history. The denial does not create new precedent, but it is consequential: it preserves the existing outcomes in the prosecutions of former Ohio House Speaker Larry Householder and former Ohio Republican Party chair Matt Borges, while keeping pressure on related federal matters involving former FirstEnergy executives.

For legal professionals, the practical significance is straightforward.