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
National Railroad Passenger Corporation v. Abner Morgan, Jr. was argued before the Supreme Court on January 9, 2002.
The parties argue whether the “continuing violation” doctrine should extend the limitations period for ongoing discriminatory practices.
Background and question before the Court
Oral argument was heard at 11:12 a.m. on Wednesday, January 9, 2002.
According to Justice O'Connor, justice O’Connor asked whether there are exceptions to the rule and when the Court would look back.
According to Justice Breyer, justice Breyer questioned whether an exception could allow recovery for conduct occurring before the 300‑day period.
Justice Stevens asked whether ongoing violations could permit damages for conduct prior to the 300‑day limit.
What each side argues
National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Petitioner)
Source-limited. The record does not yet support a complete account.
Amtrak (Petitioner)
According to Amtrak, ongoing violations of the law should not be barred by a 180‑day limit because that would effectively nullify § 706(g).
Roy T. Englert, Jr. (Petitioner)
According to Roy T. Englert, Jr. (Petitioner), according to Roy T. Englert, Jr. (Petitioner), there is a lopsided circuit split; the First Circuit’s Sabree decision, which cuts off damages at 300 days, aligns with our position.
Solicitor General (Petitioner)
According to Solicitor General, in the Lorance case, the Court rejected the Government’s request to follow Havens.
Government (Petitioner)
According to Government, the continuing‑violation doctrine applies in other areas of law and should not bar a claim simply because it was not filed within 300 days of the first incident.
What happened at oral argument
The oral argument was heard at 11:12 a.m. on January 9, 2002.
What the Court decided
Why it matters
According to United States, the Government notes that section 706(e) operates as a statute of limitations that begins when the alleged unlawful employment practice occurs.
The Government argues that the continuing‑violation doctrine in other areas of law permits claims beyond the 300‑day period, suggesting similar treatment could apply here.
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.
- 4db66dde3419c3a20e7d-r1-c6364c1afb6da2c6.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 19, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.