Whether the Sarbanes-Oxley Act's whistleblower protection provision requires a plaintiff to prove that their protected activity was a substantial or motivating factor in an adverse employment action, or merely a factor that tends to affect the decision in any way

No question identified. : APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME IN WHICH TO FILE A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO: Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Circuit Justice for the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit: Under this Court’s Rules 13.5 and 22, Applicant Trevor Murray requests an extension of twenty-one (21) days in which to file a petition for a writ of certiorari in this case. 1. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals issued its order denying rehearing en banc on May 16, 2025. Without an extension, the petition for a writ of certiorari would be due on August 14, 2025. With the requested extension, the petition would be due on September 4, 2025. This Court has jurisdiction to review the Second Circuit’s judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1). 2. This case is about the proper interpretation of the Sarbanes Oxley Act (SOX) whistleblower protection provision, which makes it unlawful to “discharge” an employee “because of” protected whistleblowing activity. 18 U.S.C. § 1514A(a). Congress specified precisely how violations of that provision are proven. A plaintiff must show that whistleblowing was a “contributing factor in the unfavorable personnel action.” 49 U.S.C. §§ 42121(b)(2)(B)(i), (iii) Gncorporated into SOX by 18 US.C. § 1514A(b)(2)(C)). A defendant can avoid liability if it “demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence” that it “would have taken the same unfavorable personnel action in the absence of” the whistleblowing. 49 U.S.C. §§ 42121(b)(2)(B)Gi), (iv) (incorporated by 18 U.S.C. § 1514A(b)(2)(C)). That two-part framework was drawn directly from the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 (WPA), which protects federal employees. See Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC, 601 U.S. 23, 28 (2024). Because the WPA was the first statute to use the “contributing factor” standard, Congress itself defined “contributing factor” in an Explanatory Statement: “The words ‘contributing factor’ ... mean any factor which, alone or in connection with other factors, tends to affect in any way the outcome of the decision.” 135 Cong. Rec. 5033 (1989). Shortly after the WPA’s passage, the Federal Circuit—which has exclusive jurisdiction over the WPA—adopted Congress’s definition in Marano v. Department of Justice, 2 F.3d 1137, 1140 (Fed. Cir. 1993), holding that a factor that “tends to affect in any way the outcome of the decision” constitutes a “contributing factor.” Jd. at 1140. Congress has since written the WPA’s same two-part framework into SOX and more than a dozen other whistleblower statutes. See Murray, 601 U.S. at 28 & n.1. 3. Petitioner Trevor Murray was a research strategist employed by respondent UBS. Reviews of Murray’s work were glowing, and his division was growing. Federal regulations required Murray’s reports to be independent, but another department tried to influence Murray’s research. App. 5. When Murray reported that pressure, he was fired. Murray filed suit under SOX, and when his case went to trial, the district court instructed the jury in accordance with SOX’s two-part framework. In language drawn directly from the statute, Congress’s Explanatory Statement, and Marano, the district court told the jury it must find “that the protected activity in which [Murray] engaged was a contributing factor in his termination.” App. 20. It went on: “For a protected activity to be a contributing factor, it must have either alone or in combination with other factors tended to affect in any way UBS’s decision to terminate plaintiffs employment.” Jd. The jury found that Murray’s reporting of regulatory violations was a “contributing factor” in his termination. Murray, 601 U.S. at 31. It also concluded that UBS had not shown it would have fired Murray absent that protected conduct. Jd. 4. On appeal, a panel of the Second Circuit vacated that verdict, holding that “even though the jury found that Murray’s whistleblowing was a contributing factor to his termination, we cannot know whether it would have found that UBS acted with retal