We will hear argument first this morning in case 25466, sweep pitch versus securities and exchange

commission.

Mr. Geiser.

Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court.

According to Section 78 U's plain text, history, structure, and purpose, the SEC cannot seek

disgorgement without showing investors suffered economic harm.

This Court in lieu directly confronted the meeting of disgorgement, traced its common

law roots, and established its traditional bounds.

It confirmed that disgorgement could not be a penalty or deterrent, and it was limited to

restoring the status quo and providing fair compensation to injured investors.

Congress acted against that backdrop to codified disgorgement in subsection D7.

It did so by including the very term that Liu had just defined without any further guidance or modification.

It simply took that term of art and placed it in the statute, and it separately paired disgorgement with penalties,

as two different remedies

with separate functions, one punitive and the other remedial. Yet the government now maintains

that Congress, and its post-slu amendments, fundamentally redefined the core meaning of

disgorgement. The government says disgorgement can serve as a penalty. It can focus solely on

depriving wrongdoers and deterring

misconduct, and the government can act without any remedial purpose, with no obligation to restore

the status quo or return a single penny to investors. The government is wrong. Its view would

override critical limits on the SEC's enforcement power, it would permit an unbounded form of

disgorgement rejected by this Court and unmoored from its traditional roots, it would treat

...