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 Glenn W. Rhodes, glenn W. Rhodes, counsel for the petitioner, emphasizes that Congress gave Article III jurisdiction through 28 U.S.C. §§1367, 1331, and 1332, and that stare‑decisis should preserve this statutory interpretation.
Background and question before the Court
What each side argues
Petitioner (Carlsbad Technology, Inc.)
Counsel Glenn W. Rhodes stresses that Congress granted Article III jurisdiction through §§1367, 1331, and 1332 and that stare‑decisis should maintain this interpretation.
Respondent (HIF Bio, Inc.)
According to Theodore S. Allison (Respondents), according to Theodore S. Allison (Respondents), the respondents, represented by Theodore S. Allison, argue that applying the review bar to supplemental‑jurisdiction remands would further the purpose Congress has expressed since 1887.
What happened at oral argument
Glenn W. Rhodes appeared for the petitioner and Theodore S. Allison appeared for the respondents.
The oral argument concluded with the statement “The case is submitted.”
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.
- f323ea476717d2ed0e6c-r1-e60f9e1e64184f8e.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 22, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.