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 parties argue about the scope of a waiver of immunity and how broadly it applies.
Justice Kavanaugh asked if Congress intended administrative exhaustion schemes to be jurisdictional.
Background and question before the Court
According to Justice Ginsburg, the dispute centers on whether the EEOC has authority to decide issues that the parties dispute.
Congress created a scheme that limited judicial jurisdiction by giving an agency first authority to resolve certain claims.
What each side argues
Petitioner (Fort Bend County, Texas)
According to Colleen E. Roh Sinzdak (Petitioner), according to Colleen E. Roh Sinzdak (Petitioner), the petitioner argues that the agency has not been empowered to resolve the claim, raising a jurisdictional issue.
According to Colleen E. Roh Sinzdak (Petitioner), according to Colleen E. Roh Sinzdak (Petitioner), the petitioner contends that the waiver of immunity is broad, potentially removing the agency’s protection.
According to Ms. SinzdaK, the petitioner asserts that the EEOC’s decisions are subject to de novo review and serve as an effective funneling function.
According to Ms. SinzdaK, the petitioner believes that the incentives of a defendant are not aligned with the system’s goals, supporting the exhaustion requirement.
Respondent (Lois M. Davis)
According to MR. MELKONIAN, the respondent’s counsel acknowledges difficulty in locating case law on the waiver issue.
What happened at oral argument
According to Justice Ginsburg, justice Ginsburg questioned whether the EEOC has authority to decide disputed issues.
Justice Kavanaugh asked if Congress intended administrative exhaustion schemes to be jurisdictional.
According to Chief Justice Roberts, chief Justice Roberts inquired about the empirical evidence the parties might present.
Justice Sotomayor asked how many cases have found a party waived the mandatory rule.
According to Justice Gorsuch, justice Gorsuch questioned the relevance of a statute that predates Arbaugh.
According to Chief Justice Roberts, chief Justice Roberts concluded the oral argument with a thank you to counsel.
- [1] 112bdaab3072b828a9f9-r1-22ba1b65f97cdc74.pdf, p. 23
- [2] 112bdaab3072b828a9f9-r1-22ba1b65f97cdc74.pdf, p. 29
- [3] 112bdaab3072b828a9f9-r1-22ba1b65f97cdc74.pdf, p. 44
- [4] 112bdaab3072b828a9f9-r1-22ba1b65f97cdc74.pdf, p. 46
- [5] 112bdaab3072b828a9f9-r1-22ba1b65f97cdc74.pdf, p. 52
- [6] 112bdaab3072b828a9f9-r1-22ba1b65f97cdc74.pdf, p. 60
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.
- 112bdaab3072b828a9f9-r1-22ba1b65f97cdc74.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 26, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.