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
The case was heard on oral argument before the Supreme Court at 10:25 a.m.
According to United States (government), according to United States (government), according to United States (government), the Government argued that the Third Circuit’s decision is binding only within that circuit.
According to United States (government), according to United States (government), according to United States (government), the Government argued that the position it took never reached the Solicitor General’s office.
According to United States (government), according to United States (government), according to United States (government), the Government argued that certain torts approximate what Congress intended regarding liability of federal law‑enforcement officers.
The Government argued that OSHA inspectors are not law‑enforcement officers because OSHA enforcement is not criminal law.
Chief Justice Roberts appointed Mr. Bucholtz as amicus curiae to brief and argue the case.
According to Mr. Paolella, mr. Paolella urged the Court to reverse the judgment below.
Justice Scalia asked how long ago the United States took the opposite position argued by amicus.
Justice Kagan asked what the difference is between the two things referenced by the petitioner.
Justice Scalia asked whether an EPA officer who writes a compliance letter is a law‑enforcement officer.
Justice Kennedy asked how the Government’s argument helps the petitioner’s case.
Justice Sotomayor asked how broadly or narrowly the Court should define law‑enforcement activities.
- [1] 30fc8fede32ded5a620d-r1-89fe56b7fcc8aa56.pdf, p. 1
- [2] 30fc8fede32ded5a620d-r1-89fe56b7fcc8aa56.pdf, p. 20
- [3] 30fc8fede32ded5a620d-r1-89fe56b7fcc8aa56.pdf, p. 21
- [4] 30fc8fede32ded5a620d-r1-89fe56b7fcc8aa56.pdf, p. 23
- [5] 30fc8fede32ded5a620d-r1-89fe56b7fcc8aa56.pdf, p. 40
- [6] 30fc8fede32ded5a620d-r1-89fe56b7fcc8aa56.pdf, p. 58
- [7] 30fc8fede32ded5a620d-r1-89fe56b7fcc8aa56.pdf, p. 58
- [8] 30fc8fede32ded5a620d-r1-89fe56b7fcc8aa56.pdf, p. 20
- [9] 30fc8fede32ded5a620d-r1-89fe56b7fcc8aa56.pdf, p. 31
- [10] 30fc8fede32ded5a620d-r1-89fe56b7fcc8aa56.pdf, p. 38
- [11] 30fc8fede32ded5a620d-r1-89fe56b7fcc8aa56.pdf, p. 41
- [12] 30fc8fede32ded5a620d-r1-89fe56b7fcc8aa56.pdf, p. 44
What each side argues
Petitioner (Kim Millbrook)
Petitioner argued that most federal courts adopt a broad interpretation of the law‑enforcement proviso, and that the “flood gates” are already open.
Petitioner (via Mr. Paolella) argued that correctional officers are law‑enforcement officers and that the statute is not ambiguous.
Petitioner (via Mr. Paolella) argued that the best evidence of Congress’s intent is the statutory text and that the statute is precise, not ambiguous.
According to Mr. Paolella, mr. Paolella urged the Court to reverse the judgment below.
United States (government)
According to United States (government), according to United States (government), according to United States (government), the Government argued that the Third Circuit’s decision is binding only within that circuit.
According to United States (government), according to United States (government), according to United States (government), the Government argued that the position it took never reached the Solicitor General’s office.
According to United States (government), according to United States (government), according to United States (government), the Government argued that certain torts approximate what Congress intended regarding liability of federal law‑enforcement officers.
The Government argued that OSHA inspectors are not law‑enforcement officers because OSHA enforcement is not criminal law.
What happened at oral argument
The case was heard on oral argument before the Supreme Court at 10:25 a.m.
Justice Scalia asked how long ago the United States took the opposite position argued by amicus.
Justice Kagan asked what the difference is between the two things referenced by the petitioner.
Justice Scalia asked whether an EPA officer who writes a compliance letter is a law‑enforcement officer.
Justice Kennedy asked how the Government’s argument helps the petitioner’s case.
Justice Sotomayor asked how broadly or narrowly the Court should define law‑enforcement activities.
- [1] 30fc8fede32ded5a620d-r1-89fe56b7fcc8aa56.pdf, p. 1
- [2] 30fc8fede32ded5a620d-r1-89fe56b7fcc8aa56.pdf, p. 20
- [3] 30fc8fede32ded5a620d-r1-89fe56b7fcc8aa56.pdf, p. 31
- [4] 30fc8fede32ded5a620d-r1-89fe56b7fcc8aa56.pdf, p. 38
- [5] 30fc8fede32ded5a620d-r1-89fe56b7fcc8aa56.pdf, p. 41
- [6] 30fc8fede32ded5a620d-r1-89fe56b7fcc8aa56.pdf, p. 44
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.
- 30fc8fede32ded5a620d-r1-89fe56b7fcc8aa56.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 24, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.