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 Petitioner, the case concerns Congress’s enactment of 28 U.S.C. §1367, which was intended to provide a federal forum for plaintiffs while respecting state interests through a mechanism to return cases to state court.
According to Mr. Lindemann, the respondent argues that §1367(d) intrudes on principles of state sovereignty.
Background and question before the Court
Counsel for the petitioner, the United States as intervenor, and the respondent appeared before the Court.
Chief Justice Rehnquist asked whether the Anti‑Injunction Act applies only to federal courts.
A Justice questioned whether South Carolina’s position was that a federal court should take a stale claim.
What each side argues
Petitioner Position
According to Petitioner, petitioner asserts that §1367 was enacted to give plaintiffs a choice of a federal forum while preserving comity and federalism by allowing cases to be remanded to state court.
Respondent Position
According to Mr. Lindemann, respondent contends that §1367(d) intrudes on state sovereignty.
According to Mr. Lindemann, respondent argues that there is no substantial federal interest justifying the stay in this case.
According to Mr. Lindemann, respondent distinguishes the Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Civil Relief Act context, noting a major difference when a stay is involved.
According to Mr. Lindemann, respondent states that the municipality has standing under the Tenth Amendment, not the Eleventh Amendment, referencing Printz v. United States.
According to Mr. Lindemann, respondent emphasizes the significance of the state law interest under the Tenth Amendment, arguing that Eleventh Amendment jurisprudence does not govern this case.
According to Mr. Peck, respondent requests that the Supreme Court of South Carolina be reversed.
- [1] 11b5eec21fed7efb4987-r1-74f75e6d7dbe31d6.pdf, p. 19
- [2] 11b5eec21fed7efb4987-r1-74f75e6d7dbe31d6.pdf, p. 34
- [3] 11b5eec21fed7efb4987-r1-74f75e6d7dbe31d6.pdf, p. 22
- [4] 11b5eec21fed7efb4987-r1-74f75e6d7dbe31d6.pdf, p. 36
- [5] 11b5eec21fed7efb4987-r1-74f75e6d7dbe31d6.pdf, p. 43
- [6] 11b5eec21fed7efb4987-r1-74f75e6d7dbe31d6.pdf, p. 44
What happened at oral argument
Counsel for the petitioner, the United States as intervenor, and the respondent were present.
Chief Justice Rehnquist asked whether the Anti‑Injunction Act applies only to federal courts.
A Justice questioned whether South Carolina’s stance was that a federal court should take a stale claim.
According to Justice (unspecified), according to Justice (unspecified), according to Justice (unspecified), a Justice asked for examples cited by the Solicitor General of the Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Civil Relief Act and other federal laws affecting states.
According to Justice, a Justice questioned whether there was an immunity issue.
According to Justice, the Court thanked Mr. Lindemann for his remarks.
- [1] 11b5eec21fed7efb4987-r1-74f75e6d7dbe31d6.pdf, p. 1
- [2] 11b5eec21fed7efb4987-r1-74f75e6d7dbe31d6.pdf, p. 4
- [3] 11b5eec21fed7efb4987-r1-74f75e6d7dbe31d6.pdf, p. 6
- [4] 11b5eec21fed7efb4987-r1-74f75e6d7dbe31d6.pdf, p. 19
- [5] 11b5eec21fed7efb4987-r1-74f75e6d7dbe31d6.pdf, p. 36
- [6] 11b5eec21fed7efb4987-r1-74f75e6d7dbe31d6.pdf, p. 44
What the Court decided
Why it matters
The dispute highlights the tension between federal supplemental jurisdiction and state sovereignty, reflecting Congress’s goal of balancing a federal forum with comity.
Petitioner warns that limiting federal jurisdiction could leave plaintiffs without a viable state‑law claim, underscoring the practical stakes of the jurisdictional question.
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.
- 11b5eec21fed7efb4987-r1-74f75e6d7dbe31d6.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 20, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.