2019 Supreme Court term

KEVIN C. ROTKISKE v. PAUL KLEMM, ET AL.

Dockets 18-328Argued
AI-generated independent summary

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 heard by the Supreme Court at 11:07 a.m. on the day of oral argument.

According to Official, the plaintiff alleges that the service attempt falsely claimed he was personally served, identified him as Black and 51 years old, though he is Caucasian and in his late 30s.

According to Petitioner (Scott E. Gant), the petitioner argues the case concerns the FDCPA and the broader relationship between this Court and Congress, noting two presumptions about congressional legislation.

Background and question before the Court

The case was heard by the Supreme Court at 11:07 a.m. on the day of oral argument.

According to Official, the plaintiff alleges that the service attempt falsely claimed he was personally served, identified him as Black and 51 years old, though he is Caucasian and in his late 30s.

According to Petitioner (Scott E. Gant), the petitioner frames the dispute as involving the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and the relationship between the Court and Congress.

What each side argues

Petitioner (Kevin C. Rotkiske)

According to Petitioner (Scott E. Gant), congress legislates against the backdrop of the common law and is aware of this Court’s decisions.

According to Petitioner, the alleged conduct does not constitute common‑law self‑concealing fraud.

Respondent (Paul Klemm)

Source-limited. The record does not yet support a complete account.

What happened at oral argument

According to United States (amicus), the United States filed an amicus brief supporting the respondents.

Justice Kavanaugh asked a question during oral argument.

According to Justice Sotomayor, justice Sotomayor questioned whether the equitable principle at issue is the same as the Court’s definition of equitable tolling.

What the Court decided

Pending This section will be added when the relevant Court material is available.

Why it matters

Source-limited The available primary sources do not support a complete explanation yet.

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.

  • 4a2759f945e4a594c10a-r1-b360289d7a296115.pdforal argument transcript

Guide generated September 27, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.