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 concerns whether Hertz Corporation is a citizen of California for diversity‑jurisdiction purposes. The parties dispute how the “principal place of business” should be determined under the diversity statute.
- [1] d4e4b3f7b4a1637ffc38-r1-b7e294161f418f27.pdf, pp. 3–4
- [2] d4e4b3f7b4a1637ffc38-r1-b7e294161f418f27.pdf, p. 3
- [3] d4e4b3f7b4a1637ffc38-r1-b7e294161f418f27.pdf, p. 3
- [4] d4e4b3f7b4a1637ffc38-r1-b7e294161f418f27.pdf, p. 4
- [5] d4e4b3f7b4a1637ffc38-r1-b7e294161f418f27.pdf, p. 21
- [6] d4e4b3f7b4a1637ffc38-r1-b7e294161f418f27.pdf, p. 30
- [7] d4e4b3f7b4a1637ffc38-r1-b7e294161f418f27.pdf, p. 39
Background and question before the Court
The dispute centers on whether Hertz’s principal place of business is California, which would make it a citizen of that state for diversity jurisdiction.
What each side argues
Petitioner (The Hertz Corporation)
According to Petitioner, a corporation’s citizenship is determined by the state where it has its principal place of business.
According to Petitioner, the Ninth Circuit erred by deeming Hertz a citizen of California, because Hertz is headquartered in New Jersey and conducts most of its business outside California.
According to Petitioner, congress intended the diversity statute to preserve jurisdiction for corporations in the 48 states and to limit it only to the state where the corporation’s principal place of business is located.
Respondent (Melinda Friend)
According to Mr. Srinivasan, the principal place of business should be identified by the location of the corporation’s principal executive offices, as shown in its 10‑K filing.
According to Mr. Schneider, hertz has substantially more employees, property, and revenue in California than elsewhere, indicating a strong connection to the state.
According to Mr. Schneider, congress’s first goal in the jurisdictional scheme was to prevent gaming of the system.
What happened at oral argument
According to Mr. Schneider, mr. Schneider (for the respondents) pointed out that Hertz has 43 percent more employees, 75 percent more property, and 60 percent more revenue in California.
Mr. Srinivasan (for the respondents) argued that the principal place of business should be identified by the location of the principal executive offices, as reflected in a company’s 10‑K report.
According to Mr. Schneider, mr. Schneider stated that Congress had two goals in the jurisdictional statute, the first being to prevent gaming of the system.
What the Court decided
Why it matters
Congress intended the statute to limit jurisdiction to the state of a corporation’s principal place of business, preserving access for corporations in the 48 states while preventing manipulation of jurisdictional rules.
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.
- d4e4b3f7b4a1637ffc38-r1-b7e294161f418f27.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 23, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.