Articles

Client Alert: The SEC Won Every Round on Its “Gag Rule.” Then It Quit.

An agency that prevailed in two federal circuits rescinded its no-deny settlement policy while a Supreme Court petition was pending. The timing, not the policy, is the story.

Parties do not usually surrender after they win. On May 18, 2026, the Securities and Exchange Commission did.

For fifty-four years, the SEC conditioned nearly every enforcement settlement on one promise: the defendant would never publicly deny the agency’s allegations. Settle, pay the penalty and move on. Never tell the public the case was wrong. Critics called it the gag rule. [1]

The rule was litigated, and the SEC won. It won in the Second Circuit in 2021. [2] It won again in the Ninth Circuit in August 2025. [3] Both courts reasoned that a defendant may bargain away the freedom to speak just as a defendant may waive other constitutional rights, provided the choice is voluntary. [4] The challengers asked the full Ninth Circuit to reconsider. It declined. They took the fight to the Supreme Court, where a petition for certiorari was pending.

A litigant with a favorable record and a pending cert petition has every reason to see the case through. The SEC did the opposite. It rescinded the rule.

The exit moved fast. The proposal reached the White House Office of Management and Budget on May 8, 2026. The SEC issued the rescission ten days later, skipping notice-and-comment and the customary thirty-day waiting period. [5] An agency that had spent years defending the rule in court undid it without taking a word of public comment.

Most coverage treats the rescission as a free-speech win. The more revealing fact is the timing. The SEC did not abandon a losing position. It abandoned a winning one, and it did so while the Supreme Court was weighing whether to hear the case.

A grant of certiorari would have put far more at risk than one agency’s policy. A ruling for the challengers would not simply end the SEC’s gag rule. It would set First Amendment precedent binding on every federal agency that resolves cases by agreement: precedent on unconstitutional conditions, on prior restraints and on the limits of a “voluntary” waiver extracted by an agency that holds all the leverage. The SEC was not the only regulator with something to lose.

Rescinding the rule can do what a courtroom victory could not: take the case away from the Supreme Court. With the rule gone, the controversy may be moot. The favorable circuit decisions remain on the books, unreviewed. The Court loses its vehicle. The challengers noticed. The New Civil Liberties Alliance, which has pressed this fight for eight years, asked whether the SEC is “just trying to evade a binding Supreme Court ruling.”

A fair account credits principle too. Chairman Paul Atkins and Commissioner Hester Peirce have argued for years that the rule was indefensible. An agency can act on principle and on strategy in the same motion. Whichever motive carries more weight, the result is the same. The precedent survives, the Court is sidelined and the agency keeps control of the timing. That is not a securities story. It is a lesson in docket control.

One qualification matters. A litigant cannot always moot a case by abandoning the challenged conduct. The SEC removed this rule the same way it could reinstate it, by procedural action without public comment, and whether that defeats mootness remains unsettled.

For anyone who has already settled with the SEC, read the consent judgment before the press release. The Commission will not enforce existing no-deny provisions, but those provisions are terms of federal-court consent judgments. The SEC’s promise binds the SEC. It does not vacate a court’s order. A defendant under a judicial gag remains, on paper, enjoined. “The SEC will not pursue you” and “you are free to speak” are not the same sentence.

Other regulators that settle cases on terms should read the move as a template. What an agency can grant by procedural action, it can withdraw the same way.

The gag rule is gone. The more durable lesson is quieter: when an agency would rather surrender a rule than let a court rule on it, the rule was never the point.

For questions about this Client Alert or its implications, please contact Dale Mullen to discuss.