As the United States marks Presidents Day ahead of its 250th anniversary, Americans are invited to reflect on the individuals who carried the weight of the presidency during moments of national peril. Standing tall among them is Abraham Lincoln, a leader remembered not only for preserving the Union and ending slavery, but also for evolving under fire into an active wartime commander.Also Read: 12 strange and surprising facts about the Civil War In May 1862, the second year of the Civil War, Lincoln did something few presidents have before or since. He traveled to the front lines and took direct, hands-on control of a tactical military operation. The target was Norfolk, a critical Confederate port and naval hub whose capture would reshape the strategic balance in the Chesapeake. What followed was a remarkable episode of presidential leadership that revealed Lincoln’s growing confidence as commander-in-chief and demonstrated how decisive action at the top can change the course of a war. A Test of Presidential Leadership When the Civil War began in 1861, Lincoln faced a daunting reality. He had been in office only weeks when the Union fractured. Though constitutionally designated as commander-in-chief, he lacked formal military training and relied heavily on professional generals. Early in the war, this reliance proved frustrating. Union armies moved slowly. Opportunities slipped away. Commanders hesitated.By early 1862, Lincoln began to realize his role required more than passive oversight. He needed to understand strategy, logistics, and battlefield realities. The war demanded not only political leadership but operational insight.Nowhere was this clearer than along the Virginia coast.Norfolk was one of the Confederacy’s most valuable coastal cities. Its naval facilities allowed Confederate engineers to transform the burned hull of what was once the Union warship USS Merrimack into a revolutionary ironclad vessel. The rechristened CSS Virginia shocked the world and threatened Union control of the Chesapeake. A photo of the USS Monitor fighting the CSS Virginia, formerly USS Merrimack at Hampton Roads. (Naval History and Heritage Command) Related: Why the battle between the Monitor and the Merrimack was so epicThe importance of Norfolk cannot be overstated. It housed shipyards, supply depots, and defensive fortifications, making it a cornerstone of rebel naval power. Its location allowed Confederate forces to project strength into Hampton Roads and threaten Union shipping lanes.As long as Norfolk remained under Confederate control, Union forces faced constant danger. The port served as a base for naval operations and a gateway to the James River, which led toward Richmond. Capturing it would not only secure Union naval dominance but also remove a major Confederate threat. Yet, Union commanders hesitated.Union forces did hold a key position nearby. Fort Monroe was a massive coastal fortress that remained in Union hands throughout the war. From this base, Union troops and ships could monitor Confederate movement, but they struggled to act decisively. The problem was not a lack of manpower or ships. The problem was caution.Union commanders feared that any attempt to move directly against Norfolk would expose their forces to attack by the Confederate ironclad. The ship’s presence created a psychological and tactical barrier. Reports to Washington emphasized uncertainty and risk. Lincoln grew increasingly frustrated. He understood that wars are often decided not only by strength but by initiative. Waiting allowed the Confederacy to dictate terms. Acting boldly could shift momentum.So he decided to go see for himself. President Lincoln on the Front Line The Union’s massive “Lincoln Gun” at Fort Monroe in 1862. (Library of Congress) In early May 1862, Lincoln left for Fort Monroe alongside Secretary of War Edwin Stanton and Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P. Chase. Their presence signaled the seriousness of the mission. Presidential visits to active military theaters were rare and risky. Lincoln’s decision underscored his determination to break the stalemate. He wanted firsthand knowledge, not filtered reports.Upon arrival, he quickly assessed the situation. Commanders were cautious. Plans were tentative. The threat of the ironclad loomed large. Despite Union advantages in manpower and naval resources, no one seemed willing to make the first move.Lincoln concluded that waiting was more dangerous than acting. His first major contribution was psychological. He brought urgency. He insisted that something be done and done quickly.He met with naval officers, army commanders, and Cabinet advisers. Maps were spread out. Reports were examined. Lincoln asked direct questions and challenged assumptions. Why could troops not land on the south bank of the James River? What prevented naval support? How shallow were the waters?His approach was persistent. He pushed for solutions. He encouraged creative thinking. He made clear that inaction was unacceptable. This shift in tone had an immediate effect. Formerly hesitant officers began to explore options. Plans took shape. The idea of an amphibious landing, once considered too risky, became the centerpiece of the operation. Designing an Amphibious Landing The plan that emerged along the lower Chesapeake in May 1862 was daring in both conception and execution. Union troops would cross the James River and land on the south side of Norfolk, effectively turning Confederate defenses that were oriented toward a more conventional approach from the north. Instead of launching a direct assault against fortified positions and risking heavy casualties, the Union would outmaneuver the defenders and threaten their lines of retreat. The psychological effect alone could compel evacuation, and was central to the plan’s logic.The maneuver required careful coordination between the Army and Navy. Troops needed reliable transport across unfamiliar waters. Naval forces had to protect landing craft while also suppressing Confederate shore batteries that might fire on vessels approaching the southern bank. The geography of the region complicated every step. Channels were narrow and unpredictable. Tides shifted sandbars. Charts were incomplete. Even experienced naval officers hesitated to move larger vessels into waters they did not fully trust.Some commanders worried that deep draft ships would run aground before reaching the landing site. Others feared that slow-moving transports would present easy targets for rebel artillery. There were also concerns that the CSS Virginia was lurking nearby andmight suddenly appear to wreak havoc on the vulnerable troop carriers. Each obstacle seemed to reinforce caution and delay.Lincoln, drawing on his experience as a former riverboatman who navigated the shallow and shifting waterways of the interior, approached the problem differently. To him, rivers were not abstract lines on a map. They were dynamic environments that could be understood through observation and improvisation. Rather than accept uncertainty as an excuse for inaction, he encouraged officers to examine the physical realities of the river more closely. He asked practical questions about depth, current, and shoreline composition. He wanted to know what could be done, not merely what might go wrong.His involvement shifted the conversation. What had been a list of obstacles began to look like a series of manageable challenges. The concept of a turning movement across the James River gained momentum. With President Lincoln present and engaged, hesitation gave way to planning. Maps were reconsidered. Soundings were taken. The possibility of landing south of Norfolk moved from speculation to operational planning. A Presidential Recon Mission In one of the most striking examples of presidential leadership, Lincoln decided that the best way to resolve lingering doubts was to go and see the terrain himself. He boarded a small vessel and traveled along the shoreline of the James River, examining potential landing areas firsthand. This was not a ceremonial tour. It was a working reconnaissance mission personally undertaken by the Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. military.Lincoln studied the riverbanks carefully. He observed how the shoreline sloped toward the water and how mudflats extended from certain points. He asked sailors about depth measurements and inquired about how tides affected navigation at different hours of the day. He considered how troops might disembark from boats and move quickly to secure a foothold. Every detail mattered.His familiarity with river navigation gave him a practical advantage. Years earlier, he worked the western rivers, guiding flatboats and learning the challenges of shallow water travel. He understood how ships could ground unexpectedly and how channels could shift with the seasons. That experience informed his questions and his conclusions.By personally inspecting the terrain, Lincoln gained confidence in the feasibility of the landing. He could now speak with authority about water depth, shoreline conditions, and the practicalities of moving troops. His presence also energized the officers accompanying him. If the president was willing to venture into dangerous waters to gather information, it underscored the mission’s importance and the expectation of action.The president’s reconnaissance helped identify a viable landing site. It also clarified the resources required to execute the maneuver safely. With these details in hand, planning accelerated. What once seemed uncertain began to look achievable. Improvise, Adapt, Overcome As a youth, Lincoln worked a ferry across the Ohio River, and even pioneered a new flatboat design. One of the most innovative aspects of the operation emerged from the practical challenges Lincoln observed on the river. Larger troop transports and warships could not reliably approach the shallow southern banks without risking grounding. Smaller, flat-bottomed vessels could navigate those waters with relative ease. Lincoln suggested using shoal-draft canal boats to carry troops across the river.These vessels, although common on inland waterways, were not designed for combat operations. However, they possessed exactly the qualities needed for this mission. Their shallow draft enabled them to navigate waters that would stop larger ships, and flat bottoms made them stable platforms for transporting soldiers and equipment. With naval protection and careful timing, they could ferry troops to the selected landing site with reduced risk.The idea addressed several concerns at once. It allowed the Union to move soldiers without exposing large transports to Confederate fire. It minimized the danger of grounding in shallow channels. It relied on existing resources rather than waiting for specialized vessels. Most importantly, it transformed a logistical obstacle into an operational advantage.This solution reflected Lincoln’s broader approach to leadership. He was not bound by rigid military tradition or constrained by conventional thinking. It demonstrated how creative thinking at the highest levels of command could influence outcomes on the ground. Lincoln did not issue detailed tactical orders in the manner of a field general, but his willingness to engage with logistical realities and propose solutions made a difference. The amphibious landing was suddenly feasible. The threat to Norfolk became real. And the momentum of the campaign shifted. The bombardment of Seward’s Point. (Naval History and Heritage Command) On May 8, 1862, Lincoln positioned himself at Fort Wool, a small fort situated on an artificial island in Hampton Roads. From there, he observed naval operations against Confederate batteries at Sewell’s Point. The bombardment was a precursor to the planned landing. It tested rebel defenses and diverted attention from Union preparations. Lincoln watched closely, consulted with naval officers, and helped coordinate the timing of operations.His presence on the scene reinforced the mission’s urgency. Officers understood that the president expected results. There would be no retreat into caution. This moment captured the transformation of a wartime president. He was no longer merely reacting to events. He was shaping them. The Fall of Norfolk The Union’s preparations had the desired effect. Confederate leaders in Norfolk realized that their position was becoming untenable. With Union troops poised to land south of the city and naval pressure mounting, they faced an encirclement. Rather than risk capture, the Confederates in Norfolk evacuated. On May 9, 1862, they abandoned the city, destroying supplies and withdrawing their forces. Union troops entered soon afterward, securing the port without a major battle.The fall of Norfolk had immediate consequences for the CSS Virginia. Without access to the city’s facilities, the vessel had no viable base. Unable to operate effectively and unwilling to surrender it, Confederate sailors destroyed the ship days later.Strategically, the impact was profound. Union control of the Chesapeake strengthened. The threat to Union shipping diminished. The path toward Richmond became more accessible. Lincoln’s Wartime Confidence (National Archives) The success of the Norfolk operation marked a turning point in Lincoln’s development as commander-in-chief. He saw firsthand how hesitation could stall progress and how decisive action could break a stalemate. Secretary Chase later observed that without Lincoln’s personal intervention, Norfolk might have remained in rebel hands much longer. The president’s presence accelerated decision-making and inspired confidence.Lincoln did not become a field general. He continued to rely on professional officers for battlefield command. Yet, he gained something equally important. He gained confidence in his own strategic judgment. He learned when to push, when to listen, and when to act. This experience shaped his leadership for the remainder of the war. He replaced ineffective commanders, supported aggressive strategies, and worked closely with generals who shared his determination.Lincoln’s actions highlighted the flexibility of the American presidency during wartime. The Constitution designates the President as Commander-in-Chief, but the extent of direct involvement in military operations has varied widely.Most presidents set strategic goals and leave tactical decisions to generals. Lincoln, in this instance, stepped beyond that norm. He did not command troops in battle, but he influenced planning, logistics, and timing. He helped design an operation that achieved its objective with minimal bloodshed.This level of involvement is rare. It carries risks. But it demonstrates how leadership can adapt to circumstances. In moments of crisis, the president may need to engage more directly. Lincoln’s example shows that effective leadership requires both trust in advisers and the courage to act when necessary. Lincoln would personally visit many Civil War battlefields, but Norfolk was the first time he exercised authority as commander-in-chief. (National Archives) Lessons for America at 250 As the United States approaches its 250th anniversary, Lincoln’s actions at Norfolk offer enduring lessons about leadership and national resilience. Initiative matters. Waiting for perfect conditions can allow problems to grow. Sometimes progress requires bold action.Knowledge is power. Lincoln’s firsthand observation of terrain and logistics informed better decisions.Adaptability wins. The use of canal boats and creative planning overcame obstacles that had stalled previous efforts.Leadership inspires. Lincoln’s presence motivated commanders and clarified priorities.Civilian control is vital. The president’s role as commander-in-chief ensures military actions align with national goals and democratic values. Remembering Lincoln on Presidents Day Presidents Day invites Americans to reflect on the individuals who have shaped the nation. Lincoln’s leadership during the Civil War remains one of the most compelling examples of presidential courage and growth. The events of May 1862 show a president willing to step into uncertainty, confront hesitation, and take responsibility for action. They reveal a leader learning in real time, adapting, evolving, and ultimately guiding the nation through its greatest trial.As America celebrates its past and looks toward its future, Lincoln’s example reminds us that leadership is not static. It develops through experience, challenge, and the willingness to act when history demands it. That moment remains a powerful testament to the enduring strength of presidential leadership and to the resolve that continues to define the United States as it approaches its 250th anniversary. Don’t Miss the Best of We Are The Mighty • 6 simple reasons the Union won the Civil War• A War of 1812 veteran saw the Battle of Gettysburg from his porch, then joined it• The Civil War started and ended at the same guy’s house Civil War Civil War President Lincoln personally led a recon mission during the Civil War By Daniel Tobias Flint Civil War 12 strange and surprising facts about the Civil War By Blake Stilwell Civil War That time an entire battle stopped to watch two soldiers in a fistfight By Blake Stilwell Civil War How female spies changed the course of the Civil War By Bethaney Phillips Civil War Robert E. Lee’s nephew got beaten by an all-Black brigade so bad he had to lie about it By Samantha Dunne The post President Lincoln personally led a recon mission during the Civil War appeared first on We Are The Mighty.

Somewhat to our surprise, one of the most popular features of the SCOTUStoday newsletter (which you should sign up for, if you haven’t already) has turned out to be the SCOTUS Quotes. Although we didn’t include these in the first few editions of SCOTUStoday, since Oct. 6 we’ve brought you around 80 such quotations, mostly consisting of remarks made by Supreme Court justices either at oral argument or in their opinions. In general, the quotes we’ve used fall into two buckets: (1) humor from the bench or (2) discussion of a justice’s legal philosophy. Without further ado, here are a few of our favorites from both categories. Humor from the bench As we’ve previously noted, Justice Neil Gorsuch currently holds the title of the funniest justice (prior champions having been Justices Stephen Breyer and Antonin Scalia). So, it’s no surprise that Gorsuch is responsible for, or involved in, some of the more humorous exchanges, including this one (concerning a very serious issue) from the recently argued Little v. Hecox. MS. HARTNETT: “You heard my friend on the other side talk about, not about cross-dressing or other laws. They didn’t have any response to our point because there isn’t one, that transgender people were categorically excluded from immigration to this country under an overall umbrella of being a psychopath. That was the way –that was the actual decision of this Court in the Boutilier case. It was interpreting language of Congress that determined that when Congress used the term ‘psychopathic personality’ to exclude people, they meant to include homosexuals and other sex perverts. And then that –­”JUSTICE GORSUCH: “Perhaps not our finest hour.”MS. HARTNETT: “Well, it’s not your fault, but I think that –­”JUSTICE GORSUCH: “Thank you for that.” There’s also this exchange (although the humor was supplied by the advocate, not Gorsuch) from Olivier v. City of Brandon, Mississippi: JUSTICE GORSUCH: “What — what’s your best shot in maybe two lines?”MR. BUTLER: “How many commas do I get?” But perhaps the funniest exchange was thanks to Justice Anthony Kennedy in District of Columbia v. Wesby (as a side note, this is one of Amy Howe’s favorite cases of all time): CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: “I — I hate to keep raising the point, but did you challenge the assertion that they said it was a bachelor party in your brief in opposition …” MR. GARRETT: “No, it was — it was — we agree that they all said it was a bachelor party.” CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: “I’m sorry, what is –” JUSTICE GINSBURG: “I thought some said it was a birthday party.” MR. GARRETT: “No, Your Honor. That — that evidence — I mean, that evidence came out at a trial, at the trial after summary judgment. Officer Campanale changed his story –” JUSTICE KENNEDY: “So Peaches is the host at a bachelor party. Is that it?” (Laughter.)  MR. GARRETT: “Yes.” If you were wondering, this case involved 16 partygoers who sued the Metropolitan Police Department for false arrest following a March 2008 house party hosted by “Peaches” (or “Tasty”). From Amy’s opinion analysis at the time: “Theodore Wesby attended a party in the northeast section of Washington, D.C., that his own attorney would later describe as ‘raucous.’ There were strippers offering lap dances, plenty of alcohol, people having sex upstairs, and (at least the smell of) marijuana. … Police arrested the partygoers for trespassing and took them to the police station, where they were eventually charged with disorderly conduct. Those charges were dropped, but Theodore Wesby and 15 other partygoers then filed their own lawsuit, arguing that the police had lacked probable cause to arrest them because the officers didn’t have any reason to believe that the partygoers knew that they weren’t supposed to be there.” The partygoers lost. Badly. On another occasion, Kennedy had a biting reply to counsel, in Lightfoot v. Cendant Mortgage Corp.: JUSTICE KENNEDY: “Don’t tell us we’re not working hard enough.”MR. BROOKS: “I do recall, Justice Kennedy, that once upon a time, the Court took 150 cases a year. Maybe foreclosures could be among them.”JUSTICE KENNEDY: “They were easier cases.”MR. BROOKS: “Perhaps I should sit down.” Finally, there was this “classic” exchange between Justices Elena Kagan and Clarence Thomas in Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts v. Goldsmith: JUSTICE THOMAS: “The — let’s say that I’m both a Prince fan, which I was in the ’80s, and –”(Laughter.) JUSTICE KAGAN: “No longer?”(Laughter.) JUSTICE THOMAS: “Well –”(Laughter.) JUSTICE THOMAS: “– so only on Thursday nights.” To take a word from our “funniest justice article”: In a time of partisan discord and caricatures, the justices’ humor reminds us of their “humanity; that they are people who make good (and bad) jokes, just like the rest of us.” Discussion of a justice’s legal philosophy The second category of quotations we’ve regularly used in SCOTUStoday concern the justices’ legal philosophies, often in the context of specific cases. In this area, few figures stand out (for good or ill) as strongly as Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., who remarked in a highly influential article from 1897: “The language of judicial decision is mainly the language of logic. And the logical method and form flatter that longing for certainty and for repose which is in every human mind. But certainty generally is illusion, and repose is not the destiny of man.” One of our more recent SCOTUStoday’s featured a one-line quote by Justice Felix Frankfurter (a mentee of Holmes’) in Johnson v. United States: “Federal judges are not referees at prize fights but functionaries of justice.” Also of note is Justice John Marshall Harlan II’s (classically conservative) statement in Reynolds v. Sims: “The Constitution is not a panacea for every blot upon the public welfare, nor should this Court, ordained as a judicial body, be thought of as a general haven for reform movements.” More recently, Justice Amy Coney Barrett had this to say to Ross Douthat of The New York Times about today’s leading judicial philosophy: “I think it’s a common misconception that answers are easy and that if you can just find the right theory, there’s the promise of certitude. And no legal theory can deliver that. That includes originalism.” And then there are quotations that straddle both categories. As Scalia characteristically remarked in the 1998 case of National Endowment for the Arts v. Finley about the court’s majority opinion: “‘The operation was a success, but the patient died.’ What such a procedure is to medicine, the Court’s opinion in this case is to law.” Please feel free to send in your favorite SCOTUS quotes – if they hit the mark, we’d be very happy to feature them in a future newsletter! The post Our favorite SCOTUS quotes appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Please note that SCOTUS Outside Opinions constitute the views of outside contributors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of SCOTUSblog or its staff. In April, the Supreme Court will hear Sripetch v. Securities and Exchange Commission. This case has gotten less attention than many other cases this term. But its outcome could have significant consequences for the Securities and Exchange Commission, one of the country’s most influential and powerful federal agencies, by limiting its discretion to punish wrongdoers and therefore reining in some of this agency’s considerable – and more controversial – authority. Background In the midst of the Great Depression, Congress passed the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 authorizing the SEC to act as an independent agency with the mission of reinstating trust to capital markets by investigating and prosecuting violations of the federal securities laws. To carry out its mission, the Exchange Act granted the SEC the power to seek equitable relief in federal courts in order to protect investors. Initially, such actions were limited to permanent injunctions against ongoing or future violations – effectively, orders enjoining someone from breaking the law. This changed in the 1960s. In the absence of a statutory definition of insider trading, the SEC adopted the approach of tackling insider trading through enforcement actions that led to courts crafting common law theories to fill the gap. This eventually led to a recognition of the SEC’s ability to seek relief from wrongdoers through common law remedies such as restitution rather than simply injunctions. Such “ancillary equitable relief,” as it was initially called, would come to be known as disgorgement, or the act of having wrongdoers return the ill-gotten gains obtained from their fraudulent activities. For some time, the SEC relied on the combination of injunctions and disgorgement – the equivalent of requiring a defendant to “put the cookies back in the cookie jar.” Nevertheless, worries of inadequate deterrence convinced Congress to further empower the SEC with the ability to impose monetary penalties, essentially large fines on companies and individuals who committed financial fraud. Thus, as time went on and the SEC’s enforcement arsenal expanded, so did the scope of the relief. After the Sarbanes-Oxley Act was passed in 2002, the SEC argued that the main objective of disgorgement was to deny the wrongdoers their unlawful profits – as opposed to necessarily making victims whole. Hence, the SEC sought, and the lower courts awarded, disgorgement in ways that exceeded the equitable, non-punitive purpose of restitution by depositing ill-gotten gains in U.S. Treasury funds instead of victims’ accounts, imposing joint and several liability for acts of misconduct, and declining to deduct legitimate expenses from the receipts of fraud. That version of disgorgement prompted the question of whether disgorgement had evolved into a form of punishment. The Supreme Court steps in In the 2017 case of Kokesh v. SEC, the Supreme Court considered whether the statute of limitations applied to disgorgement in the same way that it applied to traditional civil penalties. Specifically, the court asked whether the SEC’s enforcement actions were meant to penalize and deter financial misconduct or to account for and rectify investor loss in line with traditional principles of equity. The answer that the court gave in Kokesh was that disgorgement in the securities-enforcement context leaned more toward punitive rather than purely a remedial sanction and if the purpose was the same, the limitations applied equally. The Supreme Court revisited this issue in the 2020 case of Liu v. SEC, which examined whether and when disgorgement can be a permissible form of equitable relief. In doing so, the court in Liu distinguished equitable relief from punitive disgorgement by stating that disgorgement is deemed to be equitable relief so long as it is confined to conventional practices of equitable relief. In reaching this determination the court enunciated these practices, starting with the fact that there would have to be a victim of fraudulent conduct, individual and not joint liability, and limited disgorgement to net profits from wrongdoing after deducting legitimate expenses. The justices also noted that the disgorged funds should eventually be put in the victim’s jar rather than stay indefinitely in the government’s jar, but they ultimately placed the burden on the lower courts to apply principles to facts. Sripetch In considering whether to grant equitable relief, the lower courts have diverged on who, exactly, is a victim in the securities fraud context. Specifically, Sripetch is about the scope of harm incurred by an investor in connection to the misconduct of the wrongdoer. The question presented is whether the statutory basis of disgorgement imposes a requirement of pecuniary harm or simply an actionable interference with the investor’s legal interests. The petitioner, Mr. Sripetch, contends that to secure a disgorgement order against him, the SEC has to prove that investors have suffered actual financial loss beyond just being misled or manipulated. On the law, Sripetch presents a fascinating case which resurfaces the questions that appeared in Kokesh and Liu: has disgorgement developed in a way that penalizes and deters financial misconduct in general, or is it for the purpose of rectifying concrete investor harm? And when, if ever, do remedial actions in the context of public enforcement of securities laws transcend the bounds of restitution and enter into punitive territory? Should the court decide that disgorgement’s purpose is punitive, the evidentiary threshold for the SEC in lower courts will be notably higher as it will need to prove pecuniary loss to a judge, thus limiting its flexibility in enforcement actions. On the facts, Sripetch paints a fairly bleak picture for the petitioner: even if the court agrees with the requirement of pecuniary harm, the SEC contends that it can prove that he caused such harm on remand. But one of the amicus briefs filed – which concerns a similar case currently pending before the U.S Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, SEC v. Barry – presents an even more compelling version of the question in Sripetch that could amplify the court’s skepticism toward the expanding scope of disgorgement. Specifically, in Barry, the SEC has pursued a novel theory of pecuniary harm which is based on the “loss of the time value of money,” essentially money not being used productively as an investment, to justify a new form of disgorgement outside of fraud violations. Conclusion The SEC has long relied on common law and the flexibility of equitable relief to carry out its mission of protecting investors from fraud and misrepresentation. Over its history, the agency was able to convince the lower courts, Congress, and occasionally even the Supreme Court to allow a gradual expansion of its enforcement power through its increased ability to seek disgorgement. In more recent years however, the court has not only scrutinized the SEC’s prosecutorial discretion in administrative law proceedings, but weakened judicial deference to the agencies. It is therefore an open question if the SEC can continue on this track, or if – in the case of disgorgement – it has gone too far. Sriptech may provide at least a partial answer. The post The future of SEC enforcement authority appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

I began the path to minimalism during the Fall of 2014 and it’s one of the best things I have done for myself. So far, I have learned that minimalism isn’t just about removing materialism, but it’s also about prioritizing what is most important and it has helped define what I want out of life. […] The post Simple Living: 5 Things I’ve Learned appeared first on No Sidebar.

CRIME 101 is a crime thriller with film noir facets about a professional thief working along the coastal freeway corridor on the West Coast

All three AMERICAN IDOL judges were touched by Christian singer Jordan McCullough and his amazing rendition of....

Fox Nation’s new docudrama, DAVID: KING OF ISRAEL, has tapped SHAZAM!’s Zachary Levi to narrate. The four-episode docudrama will debut in...

Former U.S. President Barack Obama said he did not see evidence that aliens "have made contact with us," after sending social media abuzz by saying aliens were real on a podcast over the weekend.

Commander of Islamic Jihad-Nukhba forces also killed in Israeli strikes.  The post IDF Eliminates Hamas Terrorist Who Filmed Himself Infiltrating Re’im Military Base first appeared on Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion.