Insider trading is the trading of a public company's stock or other securities based on material, nonpublic information about the company. In various countries, some kinds of trading based on insider information is illegal. This is because it is seen as unfair to other investors who do not have access to the information, as the investor with insider information could potentially make larger profits than a typical investor could make. The rules governing insider trading are complex and vary significantly from country to country. The extent of enforcement also varies from one country to another. The definition of insider in one jurisdiction can be broad, and may cover not only insiders themselves but also any persons related to them, such as brokers, associates, and even family members. A person who becomes aware of non-public information and trades on that basis may be guilty of a crime.
Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 553 U.S. 181 (2008), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that an Indiana law requiring voters to provide photographic identification did not violate the United States Constitution.
Rivera v. Illinois, 556 U.S. 148 (2009), is a decision by the United States Supreme Court involving whether the rejection of a defendant's peremptory challenge to a juror constituted harmless error.
Chiarella v. United States, 445 U.S. 222 (1980), is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that an employee of a printer handling corporate takeover bids who deduced target companies' identities and dealt in their stock without disclosing his knowledge of impending takeovers, had not violated § 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5.
Barber v. Thomas, 560 U.S. 474 (2010), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States. It concerned how the United States Federal Bureau of Prisons should calculate "good time credits", reduced sentences for inmates who stayed out of trouble while in custody.
Meyer v. Grant, 486 U.S. 414 (1988), was an important decision by the United States Supreme Court on paid petition circulation. Colorado was one of several states with a process for citizens to propose initiatives for the ballot, which if passed became law. One of the requirements was to get the signatures of a significant number of registered Colorado electors. Colorado prohibited initiative sponsors from paying for the circulation of these petitions. The state argued this was necessary to "protect[...] the integrity of the initiative."
Millbrook v. United States, 569 U.S. 50 (2013), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that holds that the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) waives the sovereign immunity of the United States for certain intentional torts committed by law enforcement officers. The unanimous opinion, delivered by Justice Clarence Thomas, holds that law enforcement "employment" duties are not limited to searches, seizures of evidence, or arrests, and, as such, the petitioner can sue. As this case revolved around sovereign immunity waivers and not the merits, the Court did not decide upon the merits of the lawsuits.
United States v. O'Hagan, 521 U.S. 642 (1997), was a United States Supreme Court case concerning insider trading and breach of U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10(b) and 10(b)-5. In an opinion written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Court held that an individual may be found liable for violating Rule 10(b)-5 by misappropriating confidential information. The Court also held that the Securities and Exchange Commission did not exceed its rulemaking authority when it adopted Rule 14e-3(a), "which proscribes trading on undisclosed information in the tender offer setting, even in the absence of a duty to disclose".
Puerto Rico v. Sanchez Valle, 579 U.S. ___ (2016), is a criminal case that came before the Supreme Court of the United States, which considered whether Puerto Rico and the federal government of the United States are separate sovereigns for purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause of the US Constitution.
Reyes Mata v. Lynch, 576 U.S. 143 (2015), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that the federal courts of appeals have jurisdiction to review the orders of the Board of Immigration Appeals to reject motions to reopen.
Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. ___ (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court vacated and remanded a ruling by United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on the basis that the Ninth Circuit had not properly determined whether the plaintiff has suffered an "injury-in-fact" when analyzing whether he had standing to bring his case in federal court. The Court did not discuss whether "the Ninth Circuit’s ultimate conclusion — that Robins adequately alleged an injury in fact — was correct."
Bravo-Fernandez v. United States, 580 U.S. ___ (2016), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States clarified the application of the Fifth Amendment's Double Jeopardy Clause to cases in which a jury returns irreconcilable verdicts that convict a defendant on one count and acquit a defendant on another count when both counts rely upon the same ultimate fact.
Lightfoot v. Cendant Mortgage Corp., 580 U.S. ___ (2017), was a United States Supreme Court case that clarified whether Fannie Mae can be sued in state courts. In a unanimous opinion written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the Court held that plaintiffs may file lawsuits against Fannie Mae in any state or federal court that is "already endowed with subject-matter jurisdiction over the suit."
Peña-Rodriguez v. Colorado, 580 U.S. ___ (2017), was a United States Supreme Court decision holding that the Sixth Amendment requires a racial bias exception to the no-impeachment rule. According to two jurors, a third juror made a number of biased statements about the defendant's Mexican ethnicity, stating, "I think he did it because he’s Mexican and Mexican men take whatever they want." In a 5–3 vote, the Court held that, notwithstanding a state evidentiary rule, the trial court must be permitted to consider the two jurors' testimony.
Beckles v. United States, 580 U.S. ___ (2017), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court evaluated whether the residual clause in the United States Advisory Sentencing Guidelines was unconstitutionally vague.
Maslenjak v. United States, 582 U.S. ___ (2017), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the government cannot revoke the citizenship of a naturalized U.S. citizen based on an immaterial false statement made by the citizen in their naturalization application.
NLRB v. SW General, Inc., 580 U.S. ___ (2017), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that a person who has been nominated by the President of the United States for a position cannot hold the same job on an acting basis while awaiting Senate confirmation.
Lucia v. Securities and Exchange Commission, 585 U.S. ___ (2018), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States on the status of administrative law judges of the Securities and Exchange Commission. The Court held that they are considered inferior officers of the United States and so are subject to the Appointments Clause and must be appointed through the President or other delegated officer of the United States, rather than hired. As "inferior" officers, their appointments are not subject to the Senate's advice and consent role.
SEC v. Texas Gulf Sulphur Co. is a case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit which articulated standards for a number of aspects of insider trading law under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5. In particular, it set out standards for materiality of inside information, effective disclosure of such information, and what constitutes a "misleading" statement. Texas Gulf Sulphur represented the first time a federal court held that insider trading violated federal securities law and remained the leading case on insider trading for a decade. Over time, the U.S. Supreme Court embraced some of its holdings while rejecting others. The case continues to receive significant scholarly attention.
Shular v. United States, 589 U.S. ___ (2020), is an opinion of the United States Supreme Court in which the Court held that, under the Armed Career Criminal Act of 1984, the definition of “serious drug offense” requires only that the state offense involve the conduct specified in the statute. Unlike other provisions of the ACCA, it does not require that state courts develop “generic” version of a crime—describing the elements of the offense as they are commonly understood—and then compare the crime being charged to that "generic" version to determine whether or not they qualify under the ACCA for purposes of penalty enhancement. This decision is notable as one of many examples of Armed Career Criminal Act case law, a federal law whose provisions have resulted in significant numbers of Supreme Court cases since the law was first enacted in 1984.
