On November 24, 2025, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) decided not to hear the appeal of Trevor Murray, a former bond strategist who had been seeking to reinstate a $2.6 million jury award from his retaliation lawsuit against the global banking giant UBS. Murray’s lawsuit stemmed from his 2012 firing by UBS, which he claimed was in retaliation for refusing to publish misleading research reports on mortgage-backed securities.
In 2020, a Manhattan jury ruled in Murray’s favor, awarding him $2.6 million for what he argued was unlawful retaliation. However, the verdict was overturned by a lower court, which found that the jury instructions had been flawed during the trial. Despite this setback, the case gained broader legal attention due to a significant 2024 ruling by SCOTUS, which clarified the standards for whistleblower protection under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX). That decision established that whistleblowers only needed to demonstrate that their protected disclosures contributed to an adverse employment action — rather than proving that retaliatory intent existed. This ruling had initially led to the revival of Murray’s lawsuit, as it seemed to strengthen his case under SOX.
Murray’s legal team expressed disappointment with the Supreme Court’s decision to decline review, as they had hoped the court would take up the case to clarify further aspects of whistleblower protection. However, they refrained from commenting on potential further avenues for legal recourse. With the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the case, the decision from the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals remains in effect, meaning the jury award remains vacated unless another form of legal action is pursued.
This ruling underscores the challenges that whistleblowers can face in the legal system, even when favorable precedents exist. Although the Supreme Court had previously clarified the legal standards for whistleblower protection under SOX, procedural issues such as flawed jury instructions can still undermine the success of a case. Legal observers have noted that this outcome could have broader implications for how aggressively whistleblower claims will be pursued in the future, particularly under SOX and similar statutes. The case serves as a reminder of the complexities involved in whistleblower litigation and the importance of procedural accuracy in ensuring justice for those who come forward with important information about corporate wrongdoing.
