In the case of Liu v. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), 2019, Charles C. Liu and Xin Wang were accused by the SEC of defrauding Chinese investors out of $26 million in a visa scheme under the EB-5 Immigrant Investor Program. The couple argued that they should not have to disgorge their profits because such relief was punitive rather than remedial, thus falling outside the SEC's authority as established by Congress. However, both district court and Ninth Circuit Court ruled in favor of SEC stating disgorgement was within its power to enforce federal securities laws. The Supreme Court agreed to hear this case due to conflicting rulings from lower courts on whether or not disgorgement is considered a penalty or an equitable remedy which would determine if it falls within SEC’s jurisdiction. This decision could potentially impact how much money wrongdoers are required to return as well as influence future enforcement actions taken by regulatory agencies like FTC who also use disgorgements.

In the dissenting opinion for Liu v. Securities and Exchange Commission, Justice Clarence Thomas argued that disgorgement awards are not a form of equitable relief permitted by Congress under the Securities Exchange Act. He contended that historical practice does not support this type of remedy as it is currently used by courts, particularly because it often goes beyond compensating victims to punishing offenders - which he believes falls outside the scope of equity jurisdiction. Furthermore, he asserted that even if some forms of disgorgement could be considered equitable remedies in certain circumstances, they should still be limited to cases where funds can directly compensate victims rather than being paid to the government. Therefore, according to Justice Thomas's interpretation of statutory authority and legal history, SEC’s use of disgorgement was inappropriate.