This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
According to Chief Justice Rehnquist, the Court heard argument in No. 00‑1514, Lance Raygor and James Goodchild v. the Regents of the University of Minnesota.
The petitioners were represented by Howard L. Bolter, Esq.
Background and question before the Court
According to Howard L. Bolter, petitioners argue that Section 1367 is a constitutional and sensible response by Congress to the serious procedural problems that were facing the Federal courts prior to 1990.
According to Mr. Bolter, in a situation involving two States, the statute of limitations would probably not be tolled unless the case fell within California's time period; the statute itself, however, provides tolling.
According to Mr. Rotenberg, respondents argue that the statute is unconstitutional because Congress lacks the power to enact a sweeping expansion of statutes of limitations.
Justice Breyer asked whether sovereign immunity is a peculiarity that requires a state to waive it before a suit can proceed.
A Justice asked whether Congress can entirely forbid a state from enacting a similar statute of limitations.
- [1] 5c63076c7847811cb75d-r1-d0ff0be7a027f79e.pdf, p. 3
- [2] 5c63076c7847811cb75d-r1-d0ff0be7a027f79e.pdf, p. 19
- [3] 5c63076c7847811cb75d-r1-d0ff0be7a027f79e.pdf, p. 20
- [4] 5c63076c7847811cb75d-r1-d0ff0be7a027f79e.pdf, p. 30
- [5] 5c63076c7847811cb75d-r1-d0ff0be7a027f79e.pdf, p. 36
- [6] 5c63076c7847811cb75d-r1-d0ff0be7a027f79e.pdf, p. 23
What each side argues
Petitioners’ Arguments (Lance Raygor & James Goodchild)
According to Howard L. Bolter, section 1367 is a constitutional and sensible response by Congress to procedural problems that existed before 1990.
According to Mr. Bolter, in a situation involving two States, the statute of limitations would probably not be tolled unless the case fell within California's time period; the statute itself, however, provides tolling.
According to Howard L. Bolter, the university and the Solicitor General’s arguments incorrectly characterize the State as non‑consenting throughout the procedure.
Respondents’ Arguments (Regents of the University of Minnesota)
According to Mr. Rotenberg, the statute is unconstitutional because Congress lacks the power to enact a sweeping expansion of statutes of limitations.
According to Mr. Rotenberg, the case Alden does not compel a particular interpretation of State law.
What happened at oral argument
According to Chief Justice Rehnquist, oral argument was conducted before the Supreme Court, with Chief Justice Rehnquist introducing the case.
What the Court decided
Why it matters
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- 5c63076c7847811cb75d-r1-d0ff0be7a027f79e.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 19, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.