Episode
Oral Argument Re-Listen: Abouammo v. United States | Trial on Home Turf Not Government's Pick
- Podcast
- The High Court Report
- Published
- Jun 17, 2026
- Duration seconds
- 4748
- Processing state
not_requested
Actions
POST https://stenobird.com/v1/public/podcasts/the-high-court-report-7304353/episodes/oral-argument-re-listen-abouammo-v-united-states-trial-on-home-turf-not-government-s-pick/transcription-requests
Idempotently request low-priority transcript generation for this episode.GET https://stenobird.com/podcast/the-high-court-report-7304353/oral-argument-re-listen-abouammo-v-united-states-trial-on-home-turf-not-government-s-pick.md
Read the agent-friendly Markdown representation of this episode resource.
Summary
FS Credit Opportunities Corp. v. Saba Capital Master Fund, Ltd. | Case No. 24-345 | Docket Link: Here | Argued: 12/10/2025 | Decided: 06/11/2026 Overview: The Investment Company Act case addresses whether Section 47(b) grants private parties the right to sue for contract rescission, testing the limits of implied private rights of ac Oral Advocates: Petitioner (Abouammo): Tobias Loss-Eaton of Sidley Austin Respondent (United States): Anthony A. Yang, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice. Question Presented: Whether Section 47(b) of the Investment Company Act impliedly empowers private parties to sue for contract rescission. Posture: District Court granted Saba summary judgment; Second Circuit summarily affirmed; Supreme Court reversed. Main Arguments: Petitioner (the Funds): (1) Section 47(b) directs courts on remedy application, not individuals on rights to sue — it lacks rights-creating language aimed at a particular class under Sandoval ; (2) The ICA's comprehensive SEC enforcement scheme and two express private rights of action elsewhere in the statute foreclose implied private enforcement; (3) Congress's 1980 deletion of "shall be void" — the precise textual basis TAMA relied on — signals changed meaning and eliminates the implied right. Respondent (Saba): (1) Congress inserted "rescission" and "any party" into Section 47(b) in 1980, language presupposing an affirmative private right for both contract parties; (2) TAMA 's unanimous rescission holding survives the 1980 amendments, which refined rather than eliminated the private right; (3) House and Senate Committee Reports expressly called for courts to imply private rights of action under the amended ICA. Holding: Section 47(b) of the ICA does not impliedly empower private parties to sue for r…