Today the Supreme Court denied certiorari in a case in which IMLA participated as an amicus. The case Boudreaux v. SEC involved a question of whether qualified immunity is available to a government official in an enforcement action where a civil penalty is applied against the government official personally. Boudreaux was the budget officer for the City of Miami and during the course of the Great Recession attempted to find ways to balance the city's budget. He did so by recommending a series of budget transfers from capital projects to the operating budget. The SEC alleged that Boudreaux, solely in his capacity as budget director, fraudulently recommended inter-fund transfers between the City's Capital Project Fund and its General Revenue Fund to hide the City's fiscal problems. The SEC further claimed that, after the transfers, Boudreaux was misleading in referring to the transferred funds as "unallocated" and "unused" in presentations to the City Commission and credit rating agencies. Finally, the SEC alleged that Boudreaux, in referring to those transferred funds as "unallocated" and "unused," materially misled his superiors when they drafted the City's Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports ("CAFRs"). Boudreaux, for his part, claimed that he acted pursuant to GASB and that everything he did was supported by GASB and that he should be entitled to immunity absent some clear violation of the law. The lower court and the 11th Circuit rejected his qualified immunity defense asserting that one does not exist against the claims made by the SEC. While a decision to deny certiorari does not telegraph how the Supreme Court might decide a case if it were to grant certiorari, the denial means that in the 11th Circuit the issue is resolved against government officials and will be seen as possibly persuasive authority in other circuits. Local government officials need to be aware that they can be held personally liable by the SEC for what that agency claims to be violations of its regulatory regime. There are a myriad of possible areas of liability, but failure to disclose or misleading disclosure of material information regarding the local government's financial health or its ability to repay bonds ought to be seen as a primary basis for liability. Local government attorneys should be very careful to do their due diligence when called upon to opine on financial matters and should make sure that the local governments that they represent and their officials fully understand the implications of their disclosure requirements and their duties regarding the finances of the entity. It also appears that today that Puerto Rico will default on its bonds. Should that happen, the SEC will use that default to further regulate the state and local government bond market. You should not wait to do your due diligence and to make certain that your local government's disclosure policy is fully informed and effective. Charles W. Thompson, Jr. Executive Director and General Counsel International Municipal Lawyers Association, Inc. 7910 Woodmont Ave., Suite 1440 Bethesda, Maryland 20814 202-466-5424 x7110 Direct: 202-742-1016 Cell: 240-876-6790 Plan ahead: IMLA's Annual Conference October 3-8, 2015 - The Rio, Las Vegas, NV IMLA's Annual Seminar April 15-18, 2016 - Omni Shoreham, Washington D.C.