2003 Supreme Court term

EDITH JONES, ET AL., ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND A CLASS OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. R.R. DONNELLEY & SONS CO.

Dockets 02-1205Argued
AI-generated independent summary

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

Petitioners argue that Congress enacted 28 U.S.C. §1658, a bright‑line rule establishing a four‑year statute of limitations for civil actions arising under any act of Congress after December 1, 1990.

According to United States, petitioners contend that their racial discrimination claims arise under the Civil Rights Act of 1991, an act of Congress enacted after December 1990, and therefore are subject to the uniform four‑year limitation in §1658.

Background and question before the Court

According to Chief Justice, the Court was asked whether the limitation period for a discriminatory firing claim is four years, while a discriminatory hiring claim is two years.

According to Justice Scalia, justices questioned whether the case is needed solely to resolve circuit splits about the applicability of the statute of limitations.

What each side argues

Petitioners

Petitioners argue that Congress enacted 28 U.S.C. §1658, a bright‑line rule establishing a four‑year statute of limitations for civil actions arising under any act of Congress after December 1, 1990.

Respondent

Respondent argues that the statute of limitations in §1658 does not apply to state causes of action.

Respondent also argues that the case requires the conclusion that petitioners' claims are governed by the §1658 limitation.

What happened at oral argument

Chief Justice asked whether the limitation period differs between discriminatory hiring (two years) and firing (four years).

According to Justice Scalia, justice Scalia questioned whether the case is needed solely to resolve circuit splits about the statute of limitations.

According to Justice (unspecified), an unspecified Justice asked for clarification on whether the new act merely copies provisions from prior legislation.

What the Court decided

Pending This section will be added when the relevant Court material is available.

Why it matters

Source-limited The available primary sources do not support a complete explanation yet.

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.

  • 25f0fdd790cabfc8a71d-r1-912d27895b44e238.pdforal argument transcript

Guide generated September 20, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.