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
Rule 50(a)(1) is permissive, allowing the court to decide an issue against a party when there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis.
A motion for a new trial was filed based on newly discovered evidence.
The judge may decide a Rule 50(a) motion at any time before entering judgment and can change his or her mind at any time because the issue remains before the court.
The differing interpretations of Rule 50(a) create confusion, subjectivity, and inconsistent legal standards nationwide.
Background and question before the Court
Justice Stevens asked whether a district judge who denied a motion before the jury verdict can, within ten days after the verdict, change his mind and grant the motion.
Justice Kennedy asked what a trial court should do if it grants judgment non obstante veredicto and, alternatively, would grant a new trial.
According to Justice Scalia, justice Scalia questioned whether the rule implies that a reserved question is implicitly resolved when the court later does not act.
Justice Ginsburg asked whether the record before the Federal Circuit was truncated, noting that a larger record might exist.
Justice Souter asked for clarification on the meaning of the rule.
Justice Scalia asked whether a judge can grant a new trial on a Rule 50(a) motion.
- [1] bb71fd91e5bf0bd7a11e-r1-6397a1cfc46cf295.pdf, p. 21
- [2] bb71fd91e5bf0bd7a11e-r1-6397a1cfc46cf295.pdf, p. 23
- [3] bb71fd91e5bf0bd7a11e-r1-6397a1cfc46cf295.pdf, p. 25
- [4] bb71fd91e5bf0bd7a11e-r1-6397a1cfc46cf295.pdf, p. 28
- [5] bb71fd91e5bf0bd7a11e-r1-6397a1cfc46cf295.pdf, p. 53
- [6] bb71fd91e5bf0bd7a11e-r1-6397a1cfc46cf295.pdf, p. 54
What each side argues
Respondent Position
According to Mr. Schroeder, the respondent argued that Rule 50(a) permits the judge to grant a motion for judgment as a matter of law.
According to Robert A. Schroeder, robert A. Schroeder presented oral argument on behalf of the respondent.
Petitioner Position
Source-limited. The record does not yet support a complete account.
What happened at oral argument
The Court noted that a motion for a new trial was based on newly discovered evidence.
Justices Stevens, Kennedy, Scalia, Ginsburg, and Souter asked multiple questions about the scope, timing, and effect of Rule 50(a) motions.
According to Mr. Schroeder, the respondent, through Robert A. Schroeder, argued that Rule 50(a) allows the judge to grant the motion.
What the Court decided
Why it matters
The lack of a clear rule on when a judge may grant or rescind a Rule 50(a) motion creates confusion, subjectivity, and inconsistent legal standards across the nation.
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.
- bb71fd91e5bf0bd7a11e-r1-6397a1cfc46cf295.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 21, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.