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 Petitioner, the dispute concerns whether a district‑court order determining the forum for a contract claim is a final order appealable under 28 U.S.C. §158.
According to Justice Kavanaugh, the parties also dispute whether denial of stay relief alters the status quo under the Bullard test.
Background and question before the Court
Both parties filed adversarial proceedings related to the underlying dispute.
The petitioner argues that the district‑court order is not a final order for appeal under §158.
According to Justice Alito, the Court asked whether the parties were contesting that the proceeding was a proceeding but not a final order.
According to Justice Kavanaugh, the Court also asked whether denial of stay relief alters the status quo under the Bullard test.
What each side argues
Petitioner
According to Petitioner, the order determining where the parties would litigate Ritzen's contract claim is not a final order entered in a case or proceeding under §158.
According to Petitioner, the Gledhill case from the Tenth Circuit shows that relief from a stay can be granted and later reconsidered.
Respondent
By objecting as an informal proof of claim, the respondent is triggering the entire claims adjudication process.
According to Respondent, section 362(e) relates only to actions against the property, not to the present dispute.
What happened at oral argument
Oral argument before the Supreme Court began at 11:08 a.m.
The case was submitted to the Court at 12:10 p.m.
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.
- 08518c6ed84c4e151485-r1-7d55ed32db7e697e.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 27, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.