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 Ms. Bergmann, the case concerns how paragraph 6(3) of a statute should be read to determine when a one‑year limitation period begins.
Background and question before the Court
Oral argument began at 11:12 a.m. before the Supreme Court.
Justice Ginsburg asked whether a district judge should stay a complaint until the Supreme Court decides on retroactivity.
Justice Kennedy asked which court should make the retroactivity finding.
What each side argues
Petitioner (Michael Donald Dodd)
According to Ms. Bergmann, the petitioner argues that reading paragraph 6(3) in line with Congress’s verb tense and the Court’s decision in Tyler v. Cain shows the Government’s interpretation is absurd and effectively nullifies the provision.
According to Ms. Bergmann, the petitioner warns that the Government’s proposal would rewrite the “if” clause by changing Congress’s past‑tense verb to a future‑tense one.
According to Ms. Bergmann, in closing, the petitioner argues that his interpretation best respects Congress’s use of tense and aligns with the Court’s reading in Tyler.
Respondent (United States)
The respondent argues that a motion filed outside the one‑year period and not fitting any exception in paragraph 6 should be dismissed as untimely.
According to Mr. Feldman, the respondent’s counsel argued that the statutory “if” clause should not be rewritten to shift the limitation date set by Congress.
What happened at oral argument
Oral argument began at 11:12 a.m. before the Supreme Court.
Justice Ginsburg asked whether a district judge should stay a complaint until the Supreme Court decides on retroactivity.
According to Justice Breyer, justice Breyer questioned whether the Supreme Court must be the court that recognizes the right.
Justice Kennedy asked which court should make the retroactivity finding.
Justice Scalia asked whether the right was newly recognized or initially recognized.
What the Court decided
Why it matters
If the Court permits premature filings, it could preclude litigants from filing until a cause of action is clear, reducing futile litigation.
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.
- 5b4ea26f2abdcdf410b4-r1-adcbc11ab31b85a2.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 21, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.