Insights Search

On July 9, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court announced that it would review the Federal Trade Commission’s authority to seek restitution in federal court for consumers who have been harmed by fraud and other misconduct in the marketplace.

In United States v. Moore-Bush,¹ the First Circuit recently held that the government does not need a warrant to place a pole camera outside of a defendant’s home.

The SEC’s authority to seek disgorgement has been a spotlight issue for the last several years, and on June 22, 2020, the Supreme Court delivered a highly anticipated ruling that will have a mixed impact.

By the end of June 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court will have ended its latest term, which included several notable criminal law cases.

In a unanimous opinion, the Supreme Court overturned the criminal convictions of the ‘Bridgegate’ co-conspirators, and ruled that government corruption in the exercise of regulatory power cannot be prosecuted as wire fraud.

When a person who is authorized to access information on a computer for certain purposes accesses the information for another, improper purpose, does that amount to a federal crime?

On April 20, 2020, the Supreme Court issued an opinion in Ramos v. Louisiana, ruling that the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution requires unanimous jury verdicts for a conviction in a criminal case.

Weighing the propriety of one of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (“SEC”) most critical law enforcement tools, last week the U.S. Supreme Court entertained arguments that the SEC should not be able to disgorge profits from defendants and signaled that the SEC should be doing more to compensate victims in securities fraud cases…