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
Background and question before the Court
Justice O'Connor asked whether Rule 11, which governs frivolous arguments and motions, was applicable.
According to Justice Souter, justice Souter inquired about examples where a remand on a plaintiff’s motion would not allow fee awards.
Justice Kennedy asked whether lower courts had addressed the issue and whether there are instances where costs would be awarded but not fees.
What each side argues
Petitioner (Martin)
According to Petitioners, section 1447(c) provides for a fee award when a case is remanded to state court, but there is no statute allowing a fee award to a defendant who removes and successfully defends a motion to remand.
Petitioners argue that removal should be limited to cases where the argument is strong enough to justify the cost.
According to Petitioner, according to Mr. Holdman, there was no finding by the district court of any manipulative intent in the removal, nor any suggestion that such intent should deny fees.
According to Mr. Holdman, mr. Holdman expressed uncertainty whether the Seventh Circuit would limit the presumption to extraordinary circumstances.
Respondent (Franklin Capital Corp.)
Respondent argues that the petitioner’s proposed standard would increase jurisdictional litigation and costs, contrary to the goal of reducing such expenses.
Mr. Chilton argued that discretion is appropriate under the statute and cited congressional intent.
According to Mr. Chilton, mr. Chilton cited Gardner v. Allstate Indemnity, 147 F.2d 1257, as supporting the discretion of district courts.
What happened at oral argument
Justice O'Connor asked whether Rule 11, which addresses frivolous arguments and motions, applied to the case.
According to Justice Souter, justice Souter requested examples of remand motions by a plaintiff where fee awards would not be permitted.
Justice Kennedy asked whether lower courts had addressed the fee‑award issue and whether costs could be awarded without fees.
Chief Justice Roberts noted that successful motions to admit or exclude evidence should not result in fee shifting.
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.
- 6cfd35f608b00dd53d24-r1-56020f80f97b5d00.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 21, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.