Holmes v. Securities Investor Protection Corporation, 503 U.S. 258, 33 (1992)

Page:   Index   Previous  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33

290

HOLMES v. SECURITIES INVESTOR PROTECTION CORPORATION

Scalia, J., concurring in judgment

interpretive one. Cf. Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools, ante, at 77 (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment). It goes beyond the customary leeway that the zone-of-interests test leaves to courts in the construction of statutory texts.

In my view, therefore, the Court of Appeals correctly rejected the assertion that SIPC had no standing because it was not a purchaser or seller of the securities in question. A proximate-cause requirement also applied, however, and I agree with the Court that that was not met. For these reasons, I concur in the judgment.

Page:   Index   Previous  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33

Last modified: October 4, 2007