The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments today — transcript here —  in U.S. v. Salman, the first insider trading case to land before the justices in almost 20 years. The issue:  What counts as the “personal benefit” to the insider required under Dirks v. SEC for there to be illegal insider trading? Is it “an exchange that is objective, consequential, and represents at least a potential gain of a pecuniary or similarly valuable nature,” as the Second Circuit said in U.S. v.  Newman in 2014? Or is the satisfaction of helping a close relative enough, as the Ninth Circuit suggested last year in Salman? For a sense of what the justices are thinking, check out the transcript.