Back to today’s briefing

Story perspectives

6-3 Ruling Bars Investor Lawsuits Under Investment Act

6/12/2026

30 4 Full Breakdown

Summary

SCOTUS Bars Suits

The Supreme Court ruled 6–3 Thursday that investors cannot sue under the Investment Company Act.
Amy Coney Barrett wrote the majority in FS Credit v. Saba Capital, a case about investors denied voting power in a fund.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, saying the decision shows contempt for Congress and harms accountability, while analysts say it mirrors Medina v. Planned Parenthood and could strip Voting Rights Act of private lawsuits.

Summary

SCOTUS Shifts Enforcement

The Supreme Court ruling shifts enforcement of control-share bylaws to the SEC.
President Donald Trump’s administration backed BlackRock and other closed-end funds in the case.
Stephen Sypherd, Future Standard’s general counsel, called the decision a win for long-term shareholders.
Boaz Weinstein, Saba Capital founder, said the ruling puts enforcement on the SEC and that Saba will pursue further federal and state claims.

History

Historical Context

On June 25 2013 the Supreme Court issued a 5-4 decision in Shelby County v. Holder, declaring Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act unconstitutional and ending preclearance for 19 jurisdictions covering roughly 3.5 million voters. The ruling sparked a wave of state voting restrictions and signaled a judicial shift toward limiting federal enforcement of civil-rights protections.

1 of 3

SCOTUS Bars Suits

The Supreme Court ruled 6–3 Thursday that investors cannot sue under the Investment Company Act.
Amy Coney Barrett wrote the majority in FS Credit v. Saba Capital, a case about investors denied voting power in a fund.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, saying the decision shows contempt for Congress and harms accountability, while analysts say it mirrors Medina v. Planned Parenthood and could strip Voting Rights Act of private lawsuits.

1 / 3