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 Donald E. Pinaud, Jr., according to Donald E. Pinaud, Jr., this case concerns whether removal jurisdiction for Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) claims should be narrowly construed under the rule of construction from Shamrock Oil.
According to Ms. Blatt, the dispute also involves whether the FLSA provides an express bar to removal, meaning removal is only allowed unless Congress expressly prohibits it.
Background and question before the Court
According to Ms. Blatt, the central legal question is whether removal of an FLSA claim to federal court requires an express statutory bar, or whether removal is permissible absent such a bar.
What each side argues
Petitioner Position
According to Donald E. Pinaud, Jr., according to Donald E. Pinaud, Jr., the petitioner argues that the rule of construction from Shamrock Oil requires a narrow view of removal jurisdiction.
According to Donald E. Pinaud, Jr., according to Donald E. Pinaud, Jr., the petitioner maintains that the case should remain in state court.
According to Petitioner, the petitioner urges the Court to affirm the Eleventh Circuit judgment.
According to Petitioner, the petitioner raises public‑policy concerns about the implications of removal.
The petitioner suggests that Congress may have considered the language “maintain” to be sufficient, implying no express bar.
Respondent Position
Source-limited. The record does not yet support a complete account.
Amicus Position
According to Ms. Blatt, the amicus argues that the FLSA’s language does not expressly foreclose removal; it grants concurrent jurisdiction to state and federal courts.
According to Ms. Blatt, the 1948 revision of the FLSA makes clear that removal is only barred when Congress provides an express prohibition.
What happened at oral argument
Oral argument before the Supreme Court began at 10:07 a.m.
The case was submitted to the Court at 10:54 a.m.
What the Court decided
Why it matters
Ms. Blatt argues that the FLSA language does not expressly foreclose removal, which may affect whether cases remain in state court.
According to Petitioner, petitioner raises public‑policy concerns about the implications of removal.
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.
- aa8dcd7831091bfd4ed7-r1-2f3ebe18494be143.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 20, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.