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
The case was argued before the Supreme Court on December 3, 2008.
Background and question before the Court
The case was argued before the Supreme Court on December 3, 2008.
What each side argues
Petitioner (Keith Haywood)
According to Mr. Murtagh, congress may provide a removal mechanism to federal court, but the State cannot impose its own policy judgment over congressional decisions regarding federal claims.
According to Mr. Murtagh, the petitioner cannot bring his Section 1983 claim in any state court because New York law bars suits against employees and the State is not a person under Supreme Court precedent (Will v. Michigan).
According to Ms. Underwood, the Federal Constitution permits state courts to hear federal claims but does not require them to do so, provided the state does not discriminate against federal claims.
What happened at oral argument
Justice Alito asked what the standard is for determining whether a rule is jurisdictional.
Justice Kennedy asked whether the case involved Idaho or Johnson.
Justice Ginsburg asked about the practical difference.
According to Justice Stevens, justice Stevens posed a hypothetical about a statute limiting damages in railroad cases.
Justice Stevens asked whether, consistent with FELA cases, a rule could bar tort claims by railroad employees in state court.
According to MS. UNDERWOOD, ms. Underwood suggested that closing the doors of the court to both state and federal cases is different from hearing cases.
Justice Ginsburg referenced Testa and asked about evenhandedness regarding penal actions.
Justice Scalia asked whether a discriminatory rule would be invalid.
Justice Ginsburg asked whether there was any substantive change from the original enactment to the amendment.
- [1] ac1afdf5e592ebe64651-r1-818279ac54c81c2c.pdf, p. 21
- [2] ac1afdf5e592ebe64651-r1-818279ac54c81c2c.pdf, p. 24
- [3] ac1afdf5e592ebe64651-r1-818279ac54c81c2c.pdf, p. 29
- [4] ac1afdf5e592ebe64651-r1-818279ac54c81c2c.pdf, p. 37
- [5] ac1afdf5e592ebe64651-r1-818279ac54c81c2c.pdf, p. 38
- [6] ac1afdf5e592ebe64651-r1-818279ac54c81c2c.pdf, p. 39
- [7] ac1afdf5e592ebe64651-r1-818279ac54c81c2c.pdf, p. 40
- [8] ac1afdf5e592ebe64651-r1-818279ac54c81c2c.pdf, p. 46
- [9] ac1afdf5e592ebe64651-r1-818279ac54c81c2c.pdf, p. 58
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.
- ac1afdf5e592ebe64651-r1-818279ac54c81c2c.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 22, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.