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
Petitioner (Ali)
The petitioner argued that the phrase “other law enforcement officer” should be read broadly to include any loose tax or customs function.
According to Mr. Shanmugam, counsel for the petitioner contended that an officer acting in a customs or tax capacity is actually acting in a revenue‑collecting capacity, and that under the petitioner’s construction the statutory phrase “any officer of customs or excise” should not be limited to a revenue‑collecting function.
Respondent (Federal Bureau of Prisons)
According to Mr. Andre, government counsel argued that the statutory language is clear and that the phrase “any other” followed by “any worker engaged in interstate or foreign commerce” has a plain meaning in context.
According to Mr. Andre, counsel noted that even if a prisoner obtains In Forma Pauperis (IFP) status, the filing fee must still be paid, albeit in installments, and that the plaintiff must consider the cost‑benefit of suing.
According to Mr. Andre, counsel further explained that the amount at stake ($177) may not justify litigation, especially when filing fees were lower in earlier years.
What happened at oral argument
Chief Justice Roberts asked whether “other property” includes any type of property.
According to Justice Scalia, justice Scalia inquired about a later statute that makes an exception to the exception.
Justice Stevens asked whether there had ever been a debate in earlier stages of the litigation as to whether this was a detention.
According to Justice Souter, justice Souter questioned whether Congress intended to cover all law officers and whether mentioning customs and excise was merely to clarify inclusion.
Justice Ginsburg asked about the frequency with which other law‑enforcement officers assist customs and revenue agents.
Justice Souter warned against isolating the phrase “any officer of customs or excise” from the statute as a whole.
Justice Ginsburg asked whether the parties would have In Forma Pauperis (IFP) status.
According to Chief Justice Roberts, chief Justice Roberts thanked counsel and noted that the case was submitted.
- [1] 895cd07fbebdbd2b9daa-r1-192c0093cd7c4cbd.pdf, p. 6
- [2] 895cd07fbebdbd2b9daa-r1-192c0093cd7c4cbd.pdf, p. 8
- [3] 895cd07fbebdbd2b9daa-r1-192c0093cd7c4cbd.pdf, p. 19
- [4] 895cd07fbebdbd2b9daa-r1-192c0093cd7c4cbd.pdf, p. 26
- [5] 895cd07fbebdbd2b9daa-r1-192c0093cd7c4cbd.pdf, p. 37
- [6] 895cd07fbebdbd2b9daa-r1-192c0093cd7c4cbd.pdf, p. 46
- [7] 895cd07fbebdbd2b9daa-r1-192c0093cd7c4cbd.pdf, p. 55
- [8] 895cd07fbebdbd2b9daa-r1-192c0093cd7c4cbd.pdf, p. 56
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.
- 895cd07fbebdbd2b9daa-r1-192c0093cd7c4cbd.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 22, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.