Podcasts, Newsletters, and More

we cover: • The Empty Victory Thesis: Why dropping the requirement to prove investor harm doesn't solve the SEC's requirement to actually return collected money to real victims. • The Treasury Logjam: A deep-dive look into the $5.2 billion vault of collected, but completely undistributed, regulatory penalties. • The Counterparty Conundrum: Why identifying a true "victim" breaks down completely in complex scenarios like insider trading and open-market manipulation. • The Pf

The SEC exists to protect investors. This protection should be the bedrock of our free and fair markets. That's the premise behind every rule the SEC writes and every case it brings. But a very different picture begins to emerge when you look closely at the actions of the regulatory agency and ask a simple question: Who does this protect? A series of recent Unchained Markets Substack posts do just that.

From submitting landmark amicus briefs at the Supreme Court to representing clients targeted by unprecedented enforcement theories, this retrospective proves why a public interest law firm like ICAN is vital for the health of America's capital markets.

The Justices clearly acknowledged the issue of victimless disgorgement—the very issue ICAN has been fighting since our founding. Sripetch simply did not give them the right case to rule on it. The right case will put that question squarely before the Justices. And we have the cases to do it—at different stages, but each the right kind of case for this moment.

The Ten-Year Hibernation: How the SEC completely ignored its own internal rule to decide SRO appeals within 10 months, stretching it to a full decade. • Weaponized Delay: The severe financial, competitive, and reputational toll exacted on a firm when forced into prolonged regulatory stagnation. • The SRO Double Standard: How self-regulatory organizations like the NYSE and FINRA alternate between claiming they are private entities to evade the Constitution, while functioni

And just yesterday, the SEC finally rescinded the Gag Rule. After becoming the norm in the early seventies, the Gag Rule forced anyone who settled with the agency to agree, for the rest of their life, never to publicly deny the SEC's allegations against them. With 98% of SEC defendants settling, the rule muted criticism of the agency's enforcement actions for the past 50 years and exempted the SEC from the very standard it holds everyone else to—transparency.

For most of its history, the SEC operated with what Vanderbilt Law Professor Amanda Rose calls "de facto power" — a vast influence built not through formal laws, but through "soft" regulatory levers like no-action letters and safe harbors. These mechanisms allowed the agency to micromanage the capital markets while avoiding the transparency and accountability requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act.

Former SEC Attorneys Ask Supreme Court to End 50-Year "Gag Rule" as Justices Weigh SEC Disgorgement Power in Sripetch Amicus brief filed by ICAN in Powell v. SEC argues the agency charged with stamping out misleading omissions has itself operated "the most sweeping compelled-omission regime in federal regulatory practice."

In the past several days, ICAN was at the U.S. Supreme Court for oral arguments in SEC v. Sripetch. We saw one of our own clients' cases—J.D. Jordan's—dismissed on the eve of those arguments. We filed a new amicus brief in Powell v. SEC challenging the SEC's decades-old "Gag Rule." And we saw FINRA formally adopt the reforms to the Pattern Day Trader rule that ICAN had publicly pushed for, with our comment letter cited in the SEC's approval order.

What is this costing the rest of us? The SEC is a federal agency funded by American taxpayers, created to protect investors and maintain the integrity of our markets. Cases like these are not that. There are years of agency resources, attorney hours, and taxpayer dollars spent pursuing individuals for technical violations—without fraud, without victims—that erode the confidence in participating in our markets. When financial professionals become familiar with how the SEC

The SEC's Case Was Unconstitutional From the Start. Now It Wants a Federal Court to Enforce Its Order Anyway. ICAN and co-counsel Vartabedian Katz Hester Haynes file opposition challenging the SEC's attempt to enforce a constitutionally tainted order against a Texas retiree who harmed no one

It is worth noting that our Barry case, and our amicus brief, were cited by SCOTUSblog as presenting an even more compelling version of the issue at stake in Sripetch, one that could “amplify the court’s skepticism toward the expanding scope of disgorgement.”

The Supreme Court Told the SEC to Stop. It Didn't. Now the Court Has Another Chance. As the Court prepares to rule on the agency's power to take money when no investor was harmed, three cases show how far the SEC has stretched this tool — and why ordinary Americans are paying the price.

Host Nick Morgan (ICAN) sits down with Sarah Concannon (Quinn Emanuel), Professor Kevin Douglas (Michigan State), and JW Verret (George Mason) to identify the "sleeper" cases that will define 2026. This episode provides a deep dive into the legal theories the SEC is using to expand its reach and the pushback coming from the courts.

David Slovick, partner at Kopecky Schumacher Rosenburg and former SEC and CFTC enforcement attorney, and Professor Phil Lieberman of Vanderbilt Law School dig into one of the most overlooked—but impactful—problems in securities enforcement: the arbitrariness of civil penalties.

But we are deeply concerned about what it means for cases where the SEC has gone even further—seeking the same punishment in cases with no fraud at all. This is why ICAN is fighting to bring forward the cases—and the people—that show how damaging this practice has become.

Rather than accept those limits, the SEC has spent the past several years testing their boundaries, exploiting divisions among the courts, and deepening uncertainty for individuals and small businesses. ICAN’s long-term strategy—combining direct litigation, appeals, and targeted amicus advocacy—has now brought that unresolved conflict to the Court’s doorstep

In a surprising move, the SEC has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review a Ninth Circuit ruling that upheld the agency’s use of disgorgement, even when no investors were harmed. The case, SEC v. Sripetch, highlights a growing split among federal appellate courts: Some circuits require proof of actual victim losses to justify disgorgement, while others — including the Ninth and First Circuits — do not. In this episode, Morgan and Zaccaro are joined by Keri Axel, a former SEC

Hundreds of cases initiated one, five, or even ten years ago are still working their way through the courts, often carrying with them the threat of new precedents that, if left unchallenged, could cement past expansionary efforts and pave the way for future overreach.

Dr. Jan Jindra and Dr. Adrienna Huffman, two former SEC financial economists now with the Brattle Group, dive into their new report, which analyzes the numbers behind the dramatic policy shift from the Gensler-led Commission to the new Atkins administration.