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
What each side argues
Respondent (Shadi Dabit)
According to Respondent, the respondent described the state of the law as accurate in theory, but noted that respondents have not been able to point to a single reported holder class‑action case in State court prior to the adoption of the Uniform Standards Act.
According to Respondent, the respondent explained that Blue Chip was not about the scope of the “in connection with” requirement or the §10(b) prohibition; rather, it concerned what Congress would have wanted to authorize as a right of action.
The respondent’s position is that SLUSA does not preempt class actions asserting holder claims because Congress incorporated the Court’s interpretation of “in connection with” from Blue Chip Stamps when it enacted SLUSA.
The respondent asserted that SLUSA does not preempt holder claims for private civil‑action purposes.
According to Respondent, the respondent noted that the Court’s decision in Blue Chip Stamps involved non‑purchasers, which is a very different kind of case.
The respondent argued that a holder’s claim would not exist but for purchases and sales that caused the price to rise.
- [1] 04b921124ed58a3e5066-r1-3d6d37546a34706f.pdf, p. 22
- [2] 04b921124ed58a3e5066-r1-3d6d37546a34706f.pdf, p. 24
- [3] 04b921124ed58a3e5066-r1-3d6d37546a34706f.pdf, p. 25
- [4] 04b921124ed58a3e5066-r1-3d6d37546a34706f.pdf, p. 26
- [5] 04b921124ed58a3e5066-r1-3d6d37546a34706f.pdf, p. 28
- [6] 04b921124ed58a3e5066-r1-3d6d37546a34706f.pdf, p. 29
What happened at oral argument
Justice Ginsburg asked: “What about the --”.
Justice Souter asked: “What did Congress intend? And --”.
Justice Stevens asked: “And are you aware — you mentioned the 100 years of State precedent — is there any precedent in the State law for class actions for holder claims?”
Justice Scalia asked: “What is there in the statute that says the two have to go with each other?”
Justice Ginsburg asked: “One is — we know about the holder claims. They are saved for State actions. They're not preempted. What else would fall in this category that is not — that SLUSA doesn't affect, that can be brought as class actions in State court?”
According to Justice Breyer and Justice Ginsburg, justices Breyer and Ginsburg asked questions illustrating that Congress could not have intended such an anomalous result by allowing holders’ claims to proceed as non‑preempted.
Mr. Frederick explained that the congressional findings in SLUSA were narrowly framed to preempt only Federal‑law claims, not State‑law holder claims.
- [1] 04b921124ed58a3e5066-r1-3d6d37546a34706f.pdf, p. 20
- [2] 04b921124ed58a3e5066-r1-3d6d37546a34706f.pdf, p. 33
- [3] 04b921124ed58a3e5066-r1-3d6d37546a34706f.pdf, p. 34
- [4] 04b921124ed58a3e5066-r1-3d6d37546a34706f.pdf, p. 42
- [5] 04b921124ed58a3e5066-r1-3d6d37546a34706f.pdf, p. 48
- [6] 04b921124ed58a3e5066-r1-3d6d37546a34706f.pdf, p. 53
- [7] 04b921124ed58a3e5066-r1-3d6d37546a34706f.pdf, p. 44
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.
- 04b921124ed58a3e5066-r1-3d6d37546a34706f.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 21, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.