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
The case concerns the constitutionality of the 1995 amendment to Section 409, which protects data compiled for federal highway funding from being used in litigation.
The amendment is argued to serve an important federal interest in ensuring accurate and complete information for awarding federal highway funds.
According to Justice Ginsburg, the case raises the question whether Congress's judgment on the matter deserves substantial deference.
According to Mr. MUNGIA, the discussion also addresses whether conditions on federal highway funding may be authorized under the Spending Clause.
- [1] dfee7f081841de1c1e75-r1-9928e2a69e79bc54.pdf, p. 19
- [2] dfee7f081841de1c1e75-r1-9928e2a69e79bc54.pdf, p. 24
- [3] dfee7f081841de1c1e75-r1-9928e2a69e79bc54.pdf, p. 25
- [4] dfee7f081841de1c1e75-r1-9928e2a69e79bc54.pdf, p. 39
- [5] dfee7f081841de1c1e75-r1-9928e2a69e79bc54.pdf, p. 46
- [6] dfee7f081841de1c1e75-r1-9928e2a69e79bc54.pdf, p. 48
Background and question before the Court
Justice Ginsburg asked whether Congress’s judgment should be given substantial deference.
What each side argues
What happened at oral argument
Paul D. Clement argued that the 1995 amendment to Section 409 is constitutional and protects data used for federal highway funding from litigation.
According to United States Government, the United States Government questioned whether the 409 privilege depends on a state’s assertion of the privilege to receive funding, emphasizing that the privilege serves a federal interest in accurate information.
The Court noted that federal highway funds and the documents used for that purpose have an inherently federal character, giving Congress power to protect them in litigation.
The Court stated that the act must have authority under some Article I, Section (a) basis.
Mr. Mungia argued that there is no final judgment in the tort action and that the discovery order was taken up on interlocutory appeal.
Mr. Mungia also argued that the funding condition cannot be authorized under the Spending Clause.
According to Mr. MUNGIA, the statutory language requires control over vehicle size and weight to avoid loss of funding, similar to other statutes.
The Court referenced the Dole case, noting that under 23 U.S.C. 158 the title of the act was withdrawal of Federal funds.
The Solicitor General, as amicus, argued that documents in the hands of the transferee agency are protected because they exist only due to the planning agency’s collection of that information.
- [1] dfee7f081841de1c1e75-r1-9928e2a69e79bc54.pdf, p. 19
- [2] dfee7f081841de1c1e75-r1-9928e2a69e79bc54.pdf, p. 24
- [3] dfee7f081841de1c1e75-r1-9928e2a69e79bc54.pdf, p. 25
- [4] dfee7f081841de1c1e75-r1-9928e2a69e79bc54.pdf, p. 38
- [5] dfee7f081841de1c1e75-r1-9928e2a69e79bc54.pdf, p. 40
- [6] dfee7f081841de1c1e75-r1-9928e2a69e79bc54.pdf, p. 46
- [7] dfee7f081841de1c1e75-r1-9928e2a69e79bc54.pdf, p. 48
- [8] dfee7f081841de1c1e75-r1-9928e2a69e79bc54.pdf, p. 49
- [9] dfee7f081841de1c1e75-r1-9928e2a69e79bc54.pdf, p. 55
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.
- dfee7f081841de1c1e75-r1-9928e2a69e79bc54.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 19, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.