No. 22-660October Term 2023Decided Feb 8, 2024
Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC
The Supreme Court ruled that a whistleblower suing under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act does not need to prove that their employer acted with "retaliatory intent" or animus to succeed on a claim.
Case status
- Current stage
- Decided
- Latest event
- Decision released Feb 8, 2024
- What it's about
The Supreme Court ruled that a whistleblower suing under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act does not need to prove that their employer acted with "retaliatory intent" or animus to succeed on a claim. Instead, the employee must only demonstrate that their protected whistleblowing activity was a "contributing factor" in the adverse employment action taken against them.
Question presented
Under 18 U.S.C. § 1514A, must a whistleblower prove his employer acted with “retaliatory intent” as part of his case in chief?
- Case path
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit / Decision released Feb 8, 2024
- Area
Decided Supreme Court case
Documents
Related cases




Grounding
- Grounding
- Primary-source trail available.
- Note
- Plain-English explainer. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.
- Checked
- Mar 30, 2026
- Method
- Methodology
Primary materials8
Supreme Court docket 22-660
docket | Mar 30, 2026
Primary case document
Supreme Court document | Mar 30, 2026
CourtListener docket record
docket | Mar 30, 2026
Questions Presented
brief | Mar 8, 2026
Murray
opinion | Feb 8, 2024
opinion
opinion | Feb 8, 2024
Petition
brief | Jan 13, 2023
Lower Court Orders/Opinions
order | Nov 11, 2022