{"argument_date":"2000-10-10T00:00:00Z","arguments":[{"argument_date":"2000-10-10T00:00:00Z","heading":"What happened at the argument","official_detail_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcript/2000","official_transcript_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-1238.pdf","paragraphs":["Mr. Castellano argued that repetitive state motions extend the federal habeas deadline.","Mr. Schweitzer argued that repetitive state motions undermine the statutory limitation period.","Chief Justice Rehnquist closed the argument by stating the case was submitted."],"reargument":false,"sequence":1,"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 19, lines 49-21","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-1238.pdf","page_label":"file page 19, lines 49-21"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 17-21","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-1238.pdf","page_label":"file page 28, lines 17-21"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-39","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-1238.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 17-39"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-1238.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 5-15"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 49, lines 23-25","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-1238.pdf","page_label":"file page 49, lines 23-25"}]}],"caption":"Artuz v. Bennett","case_history":[{"changed_at":"2026-08-29T20:06:33.867871Z","explanation":"An official oral-argument transcript was verified.","status":"argued"}],"case_status":"argued","dek":"The dispute centers on whether filing repetitive, procedurally barred state motions extends the one-year federal habeas deadline.","dek_sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 19, lines 49-21","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-1238.pdf","page_label":"file page 19, lines 49-21"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 17-21","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-1238.pdf","page_label":"file page 28, lines 17-21"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-39","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-1238.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 17-39"}],"dispositions":[],"latest_court_document_date":"2000-10-10T00:00:00Z","maturity":"official_transcript","official_detail_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcript/2000","official_disposition_urls":[],"official_docket_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/99-1238.html","primary_docket":"99-1238","revisions":[{"correction_note":"Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.","created_at":"2026-08-31T18:30:52.987643Z","maturity":"official_transcript","revision_number":1},{"correction_note":"Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.","created_at":"2026-09-05T03:22:24Z","maturity":"official_transcript","revision_number":2}],"schema_version":"1.1","sections":[{"heading":"What this case is about","paragraphs":["This case tests the scope of the federal habeas statute's tolling provision. The core conflict involves the definition of a properly filed application. One side argues the term excludes repetitive motions. The other side argues the term includes them to harmonize exhaustion rules."],"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 19, lines 49-21","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-1238.pdf","page_label":"file page 19, lines 49-21"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 17-21","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-1238.pdf","page_label":"file page 28, lines 17-21"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-39","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-1238.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 17-39"}]},{"heading":"How the case got here","paragraphs":["The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on October 10, 2000."],"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-1238.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 5-15"}]},{"heading":"What each side wants","paragraphs":["the side that brought the case wants the Court to allow repetitive state motions to extend the federal habeas deadline.","the opposing side wants the Court to reject repetitive state motions as valid tolling events."],"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 19, lines 49-21","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-1238.pdf","page_label":"file page 19, lines 49-21"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 17-21","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-1238.pdf","page_label":"file page 28, lines 17-21"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-39","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-1238.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 17-39"}]},{"heading":"What each side says","paragraphs":["the side that brought the case argues that repetitive state motions count as properly filed applications under the statute.","the opposing side argues that repetitive state motions are procedurally barred and cannot toll the deadline."],"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 19, lines 49-21","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-1238.pdf","page_label":"file page 19, lines 49-21"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 17-21","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-1238.pdf","page_label":"file page 28, lines 17-21"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-39","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-1238.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 17-39"}]},{"heading":"What the justices asked","paragraphs":["Chief Justice Rehnquist asked if the case was submitted after the arguments concluded."],"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 49, lines 23-25","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-1238.pdf","page_label":"file page 49, lines 23-25"}]},{"heading":"Why it matters","paragraphs":["This issue determines the finality of state criminal convictions. It defines the boundary between state procedural rules and federal habeas rights. It impacts the timing of federal court reviews of state prison sentences."],"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 19, lines 49-21","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-1238.pdf","page_label":"file page 19, lines 49-21"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 17-21","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-1238.pdf","page_label":"file page 28, lines 17-21"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-39","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-1238.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 17-39"}]},{"heading":"What happens next","paragraphs":["This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity."],"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-1238.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 5-15"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 49, lines 23-25","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-1238.pdf","page_label":"file page 49, lines 23-25"}]}],"slug":"2000-99-1238-artuz-v-bennett","term":"2000","title":"Can repetitive state motions extend the federal habeas deadline?","title_sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 19, lines 49-21","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-1238.pdf","page_label":"file page 19, lines 49-21"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 17-21","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-1238.pdf","page_label":"file page 28, lines 17-21"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-39","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-1238.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 17-39"}],"topics":[],"undated_disposition_date_fallback":null,"updated_at":"2026-09-05T03:22:24Z"}