Supreme Court Issues Three Major Rulings on SEC, Telecom, and Voting Rights
The U.S. Supreme Court delivered three consequential rulings this week, addressing the Securities and Exchange Commission’s power to recoup fraud proceeds, the Federal Communications Commission’s authority to fine telecom companies over data privacy, and the dwindling options for protecting minority voting rights under a weakened Voting Rights Act. The decisions, issued across June 4 and 5, touch on fundamental questions of regulatory power and democratic representation.
Context: A Pivotal Term for Agency Authority
The rulings arrive during a term in which the Court’s conservative majority has continued to reshape the relationship between federal agencies and the courts. After overturning the Chevron doctrine in 2024 and stripping the SEC of a major enforcement tool that same year, the Court’s latest decisions present a more nuanced picture — one that preserves certain regulatory powers even as it limits others.
SEC Authority: A Unanimous Defense of Disgorgement
In a unanimous 9-0 ruling on June 4, the Court upheld the SEC’s broad authority to recoup ill-gotten gains from securities fraud without proving that individual investors suffered direct losses. Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the Court in Sripetch v. SEC, held that it is sufficient to show that the defendant profited from illegal transactions and that “an investor may qualify as a victim of an offender’s wrongdoing entitled to compensation.”
The case involved Ongkaruck Sripetch, a Los Angeles resident sentenced to 21 months in prison for selling unregistered securities as part of a scheme involving high-risk penny stocks. He had challenged a court order requiring him to repay more than $3 million, including interest, arguing that the SEC needed to prove individual investor losses. The Associated Press reported that the ruling strengthens the SEC’s enforcement capabilities in pump-and-dump and other fraudulent schemes, maintaining a strong deterrent against securities fraud.
The unanimous decision signals broad judicial consensus on this aspect of SEC authority, even as the Court has otherwise limited agency power in recent terms.
Telecom Regulation: FCC Enforcement Tool Preserved
Also on June 4, the Court ruled 8-1 in AT&T Inc. v. FCC and Verizon v. FCC, siding with the Trump administration and preserving the FCC’s power to enforce data privacy laws on telecommunications companies. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority, stating that “the orders at issue did not settle the carriers’ legal obligations because, stated simply, they did not create an obligation to pay.”
AT&T and Verizon had challenged a combined $100 million in penalties imposed after the FCC determined the companies failed to safeguard customer location data. The companies argued the FCC’s process was unconstitutional because it gave them little opportunity to present their case before a jury. However, the Associated Press noted that the government also conceded that companies did not have to pay penalties immediately, a regulatory shift in the companies’ favor.
Justice Clarence Thomas was the lone dissenter, arguing he would have given the telecom companies a clearer path to recouping fines they already paid. The ruling has implications beyond telecom — environmental groups like Earthjustice noted that other agencies use similar enforcement methods. Caroline Flynn, Earthjustice’s Supreme Court counsel, said the decision “safeguards the government’s ability to enforce laws that protect people, communities, and the environment.”
Mark Chenoweth, president of the New Civil Liberties Alliance, expressed disappointment but predicted the ruling could “buttress [companies’] willingness to challenge future agency orders in federal court before paying any penalties.”
Voting Rights: Limited Options After Landmark Weakening
The third consequential development involves voting rights, though it is less a single ruling than the culmination of a series of decisions that have dramatically narrowed protections for minority voters. The Court’s April 2026 decision in Louisiana v. Callais severely weakened Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, and on June 2, the Court allowed Alabama to use a congressional map that a lower court found intentionally discriminates against Black voters.
As NPR reported, minority voters are now left with limited alternatives for combatting racial discrimination in redistricting. Remaining options include state-level voting rights acts — around a dozen states, all Democratic-controlled, have passed them — and map-drawing strategies in Democratic-controlled states. However, state-level acts generally cover only state and local elections, and no state with unified Republican or divided government has passed one.
“Today the bulk of Black people live in the states of the old Confederacy,” said Wilfred Codrington III, a professor of constitutional law at Cardozo School of Law. “And that is exactly where you’re seeing the worst types of retrenchment.” Codrington also expressed concern that the Supreme Court may have state voting rights acts “in its crosshairs as well.”
Harvard Law professor Nick Stephanopoulos noted that “only federal action would respond to the vacuum that’s left in the South.” However, any federal legislative fix — such as the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act — would require Democrats to regain control of both Congress and the White House, an outcome that remains uncertain.
Analysis: A Court Pulling in Multiple Directions
Taken together, the three rulings paint a complex picture of the current Supreme Court. On one hand, the unanimous SEC decision and the 8-1 telecom ruling show that the Court can still find common ground in preserving certain regulatory tools. On the other hand, the progressive weakening of the Voting Rights Act — one of the landmark civil rights laws of the 20th century — represents a profound shift in the Court’s approach to racial discrimination in elections.
The SEC ruling may offer some reassurance to regulators concerned about the Court’s broader skepticism of agency authority, but the voting rights decisions underscore that for many Americans, the most significant consequences of this term will be felt at the ballot box.
What to Watch For
Looking ahead, several developments bear close attention. The conservative Public Interest Legal Foundation has already filed a lawsuit challenging Illinois’ state voting rights act, and more legal challenges are expected. The Trump administration’s Justice Department has signaled possible opposition to state-level voting rights protections. Meanwhile, redistricting for the 2028 election cycle will proceed under the Court’s weakened Section 2 framework, potentially reshaping the political landscape for years to come. The FCC’s enforcement posture will also be tested as telecom companies weigh whether to challenge future fines rather than pay them immediately.