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 Jeffrey A. Schwartz, the case concerns whether federal courts have subject‑matter jurisdiction over Title VII claims against employers with fewer than 15 employees.
Background and question before the Court
According to Jeffrey A. Schwartz, a Federal court has subject matter jurisdiction over a claim brought under Title VII regardless of whether an employer has 15 employees.
According to Justice Ginsburg, is the Title VII jurisdictional provision merely redundant with 28 U.S.C. §1331, adding nothing new?
What each side argues
Petitioner Position
According to Jeffrey A. Schwartz, a Federal court has subject matter jurisdiction over a claim brought under Title VII regardless of whether an employer has 15 employees.
Respondent Position
Source-limited. The record does not yet support a complete account.
What happened at oral argument
JUSTICE GINSBURG: So you say -- so now it's essentially redundant. Now that 1331 has no jurisdictional amount, no amount in controversy, the jurisdictional provision in title VII is just going over the same territory. It doesn't add or detract. Is that so?
According to Chief Justice Roberts, cHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: I'm sorry. What have juries been determining?
According to Chief Justice Roberts, cHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: What other aspects of title VII do you think are jurisdictional?
According to Justice O'Connor, jUSTICE O'CONNOR: But the practical consequences of affirming here are severe in terms of handling these cases.
According to Justice Ginsburg, jUSTICE GINSBURG: May I go back to Zipes?
According to Chief Justice Roberts, cHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Does it make a difference on the -- the -- does the categorization make a difference on the relevant time of the inquiry for the 15 employees?
According to Justice Scalia, jUSTICE SCALIA: Do you think -- do you think it's possible that -- that Indian tribes could be jurisdictional but an employer couldn't?
- [1] c8471efde131427da95d-r1-9385a9469a582af5.pdf, p. 4
- [2] c8471efde131427da95d-r1-9385a9469a582af5.pdf, p. 23
- [3] c8471efde131427da95d-r1-9385a9469a582af5.pdf, p. 31
- [4] c8471efde131427da95d-r1-9385a9469a582af5.pdf, p. 36
- [5] c8471efde131427da95d-r1-9385a9469a582af5.pdf, p. 38
- [6] c8471efde131427da95d-r1-9385a9469a582af5.pdf, p. 49
- [7] c8471efde131427da95d-r1-9385a9469a582af5.pdf, p. 52
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.
- c8471efde131427da95d-r1-9385a9469a582af5.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 21, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.