Digital Realty Trust v. Somers
U.S. Supreme Court · decided February 21, 2018 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Decided
- February 21, 2018
- Term
- October Term 2017
- Vote
- 9–0
- Majority author
- Justice Ginsburg
- Issue area
- Economic Activity
- Disposition
- Reversed and remanded
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Conservative
Opinion excerpt
Justice GINSBURG delivered the opinion of the Court. Endeavoring to root out corporate fraud, Congress passed the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 116 Stat. 745 (Sarbanes-Oxley), and the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, 124 Stat. 1376 (Dodd-Frank). Both Acts shield whistleblowers from retaliation, but they differ in important respects. Most notably, Sarbanes-Oxley applies to all "employees" who report misconduct to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC or Commission), any other federal agency, Congress, or an internal supervisor. 18 U.S.C. § 1514A(a)(1). Dodd-Frank delineates a more circumscribed class; it defines "whistleblower" to mean a person who provides "information relating to a violation of the securities laws to the Commission." 15 U.S.C. § 78u-6(a)(6). A whistleblower so defined is eligible for an award if original information he or she provides to the SEC leads to a successful enforcement action. § 78u-6(b) - (g). And, most relevant here, a whistleblower is protected from retaliation for, inter alia, "making disclosures that are required or protected under" Sarbanes-Oxley, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the criminal anti-retaliation proscription at 18 U.S.C. § 1513(e), or any other law subject to the SEC's jurisdiction. 15 U.S.C. § 78u-6(h)(1)(A)(iii). The question presented: Does the anti-retaliation provision of Dodd-Frank…
Excerpt of a 42,717-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.