Amy Howe

Nov 1 2019

Justices add securities-law case to merits docket, extend DACA argument

With less than two weeks to go before the Supreme Court hears oral argument in the challenge to the Trump administration’s decision to end the program known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, the justices today expanded the time devoted to the argument from 60 to 80 minutes. The federal government will have 40 of those minutes, while the other 40 will be divided equally between the states (led by California and New York) and other challengers (including DACA recipients and the NAACP).

In other orders from their private conference today, the justices agreed to hear the case of Charles Liu and Xin Wang, who obtained $27 million from 50 Chinese investors who wanted to take advantage of a federal program that provides visas to immigrants who invest in businesses that create jobs in the United States. Liu and Wang told the investors that the money would be used to build a cancer-treatment center, but they never even secured the permits that they would need to start construction. Instead, they transferred most of the money to their own overseas accounts.

The Securities and Exchange Commission filed a civil lawsuit against Liu and Wang, alleging that the pair had violated federal securities laws. The district court agreed and ordered them to pay $26.7 million – virtually all the money they had raised – as well as a statutory penalty totaling over $8 million. The court also barred Liu and Wang from participating in new visa-investment programs. After the court of appeals upheld the order, Liu and Wang asked the Supreme Court to weigh in on whether the SEC had the authority to seek repayment of profits in civil-enforcement cases like theirs. The disgorgement order, they argued, was a penalty intended to deter them from future violations of federal securities laws, a remedy that is not authorized by the laws under which the SEC sued. A ruling for Liu and Wang could have a significant impact on the SEC’s enforcement efforts: In their petition for review, they told the justices that in 2018 the SEC collected $2.51 billion through disgorgement – over a billion dollars more than it collected in civil penalties. The case will likely be scheduled for argument early next year, with a decision to follow by summer.

More orders from today’s conference are expected on Monday at 9:30 a.m.

This post is also published on SCOTUSblog.

Amy L Howe
Until September 2016, Amy served as the editor and reporter for SCOTUSblog, a blog devoted to coverage of the Supreme Court of the United States; she continues to serve as an independent contractor and reporter for SCOTUSblog. Before turning to full-time blogging, she served as counsel in over two dozen merits cases at the Supreme Court and argued two cases there. From 2004 until 2011, she co-taught Supreme Court litigation at Stanford Law School; from 2005 until 2013, she co-taught a similar class at Harvard Law School. She has also served as an adjunct professor at American University’s Washington College of Law and Vanderbilt Law School. Amy is a graduate of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and holds a master’s degree in Arab Studies and a law degree from Georgetown University.
Tweets by @AHoweBlogger
Recent ScotusBlog Posts from Amy
  • David Souter, retired Supreme Court justice, dies at 85
  • Venezuelan TPS recipients tell justices to let status stand
  • Government asks justices to allow DHS to revoke parole for a half-million noncitizens
More from Amy Howe

Recent Posts

  • Court appears to back legality of HHS preventative care task force
  • Justices take up Texas woman’s claim against USPS
  • Supreme Court considers parents’ efforts to exempt children from books with LGBTQ themes
  • Justices temporarily bar government from removing Venezuelan men under Alien Enemies Act
  • Court hears challenge to ACA preventative-care coverage
Site built and optimized by Sound Strategies