Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →
CashCall, Inc., et al. v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, No. 23-55259 · judgment April 24, 2025
Before the decision, modestly above the 4.1% base rate. The model weighted this up for counsel who has won certiorari before, a Ninth Circuit decision below, and a business petitioner, and down for a business respondent.
Questions presented
This Court has held that equitable restitution can be awarded without a jury but is capped at “a defendant’s net profits,” Liu v. SEC, 591 U.S. 71, 87 (2020), whereas legal relief may exceed net profits but triggers the right to a jury trial, SEC v. Jarkesy, 603 U.S. 109, 122-25 (2024). Despite that clear dichotomy, the Ninth Circuit holds that claims for “legal” restitution in excess of net profits do not “trigger[] the right to a jury trial.” App.7. That aberrant rule, which the district court here invoked to impose $134 million in “restitution” for a loan program that lost money, “dilutes the jury trial right” and “puts [the Ninth Circuit] at odds with” this Court and circuits that faithfully follow its precedents. App.19, 27 (Nelson, J., concurring). The court of appeals’ effort to sidestep this clear conflict by deeming petitioners to have “waived” their jury-trial rights “during the initial district court proceedings,” App.2, only makes matters worse, as it flouts this Court’s teachings and implicates another circuit split. Most circuits sensibly hold that a party cannot waive a right that is foreclosed by clear circuit precedent. But the court here held that petitioners waived jury-trial rights that do not exist in the Ninth Circuit—and, by so holding, managed to preserve that erroneous and rightsdenying precedent. The questions presented are:
-
Whether a claim for legal restitution triggers the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial.
-
Whether a litigant may validly waive a constitutional right at a time when binding circuit precedent clearly forecloses any exercise of that right.
Counsel of record
For petitioner
Paul D. Clement
Clement & Murphy, PLLC
For respondent
D. John Sauer
Solicitor General
Proceedings
- Mar 02 2026Petition DENIED.
- Feb 11 2026DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/27/2026.
- Feb 11 2026Reply of petitioners CashCall, Inc., et al. filed. (Distributed)
- Jan 23 2026Brief of respondent Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in opposition filed.
- Dec 17 2025Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including January 23, 2026.
- Dec 15 2025Motion to extend the time to file a response from December 24, 2025 to January 23, 2026, submitted to The Clerk.
- Nov 20 2025Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including December 24, 2025.
- Nov 19 2025Motion to extend the time to file a response from November 24, 2025 to December 24, 2025, submitted to The Clerk.
- Oct 08 2025Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including November 24, 2025.
- Oct 06 2025Motion to extend the time to file a response from October 23, 2025 to November 24, 2025, submitted to The Clerk.
- Sep 19 2025Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due October 23, 2025)
- Aug 13 2025Application (25A46) granted by Justice Kagan extending the time to file until September 19, 2025.
- Aug 11 2025Application (25A46) to extend further the time from August 22, 2025 to September 19, 2025, submitted to Justice Kagan.
- Jul 11 2025Application (25A46) granted by Justice Kagan extending the time to file until August 22, 2025.
- Jul 08 2025Application (25A46) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from July 23, 2025 to August 22, 2025, submitted to Justice Kagan.