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 Petitioners, the case Kircher v. Putnam Funds Trust concerns whether the general rule prohibiting appealability applies.
The parties dispute the scope of the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act (SLUSA) and whether it precludes certain state‑law claims.
Background and question before the Court
What each side argues
Petitioner Position
The petitioners argue that the general rule prohibiting appealability applies in this case for three reasons.
According to Mr. PERRY, the petitioners contend that SLUSA precludes precisely what subsection (b) says it precludes, which is beyond the scope of 10b‑5.
The petitioners argue that if a State court gave preclusive effect to the Federal court judgment, the collateral estoppel question would be open to review.
Respondent Position
According to Mr. FREDERICK, mr. Frederick states that Congress has decided there is a paramount interest in having decisions made on their merits, which is why there is no appellate review of remand orders.
According to Mr. Frederick, mr. Frederick asserts that a complaint alleging negligent use of manipulative devices would be covered by SLUSA and thus preempted.
Mr. Frederick further argues that the district court was wrong in not anticipating Dabit, but not wrong regarding subject‑matter jurisdiction because the case is based on negligence, not fraud.
What happened at oral argument
According to Chief Justice Roberts, chief Justice Roberts announced that the Court would hear argument next in Kircher v. Putnam Funds Trust.
Justice Scalia asked, “Why not?”
Justice Breyer asked about the consequence of that and how often the issue arises.
Justice Breyer later asked, “I’m confused now. You’re saying both sides agreed that section 1447(d) does not apply?”
According to Justice Ginsburg, justice Ginsburg noted that a Nassau County court could decline to treat the issue as preclusive.
Justice Souter expressed confusion, asking, “Why can’t it?”
According to Chief Justice Roberts, chief Justice Roberts said counsel could change the law if the Court wishes.
Justice Kennedy asked a question (incomplete).
Justice Stevens asked Mr. Frederick whether a complaint alleging negligent use of manipulative devices would be covered by SLUSA.
- [1] cab20ec0c0aa3582941b-r1-90c1760a468a200b.pdf, p. 3
- [2] cab20ec0c0aa3582941b-r1-90c1760a468a200b.pdf, p. 4
- [3] cab20ec0c0aa3582941b-r1-90c1760a468a200b.pdf, p. 20
- [4] cab20ec0c0aa3582941b-r1-90c1760a468a200b.pdf, p. 33
- [5] cab20ec0c0aa3582941b-r1-90c1760a468a200b.pdf, p. 38
- [6] cab20ec0c0aa3582941b-r1-90c1760a468a200b.pdf, p. 40
- [7] cab20ec0c0aa3582941b-r1-90c1760a468a200b.pdf, p. 48
- [8] cab20ec0c0aa3582941b-r1-90c1760a468a200b.pdf, p. 56
- [9] cab20ec0c0aa3582941b-r1-90c1760a468a200b.pdf, p. 57
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.
- cab20ec0c0aa3582941b-r1-90c1760a468a200b.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 21, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.