NAAG, Attorneys General

This Report summarizes opinions issued on April 12, 16, and 17, 2024 (Part I).

In a unanimous decision, the Court held that “[p]ure omissions are not actionable under [Securities and Exchange Commission] Rule 10b-5(b).” Section 10(b) of the Security Exchange Act and its implementing regulation, SEC Rule 10b-5, “make[ ] it unlawful to omit material facts in connection with buying or selling securities when that omission renders ‘statements made misleading’” and provide for a private cause of action for such violations.

The Court unanimously held that the Takings Clause does not distinguish between legislative and administrative permit conditions. Petitioner George Sheetz owned property in El Dorado County, California and sought a permit to build a prefabricated home on his residential parcel of land.

Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2(b)(2)(B) requires a federal district court to enter a preliminary order of criminal forfeiture “sufficiently in advance of sentencing to allow the parties to suggest revisions or modifications before the order becomes final as to the defendant.”

The Court had granted certiorari to resolve whether the Takings Clause creates by its own force a cause of action authorizing suits for just compensation, but held unanimously that it need not decide that question because here “Texas law provides a cause of action that allows property owners to vindicate their rights under the Takings Clause.”