{"argument_date":"2003-02-26T00:00:00Z","arguments":[{"argument_date":"2003-02-26T00:00:00Z","heading":"What happened at the argument","official_detail_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcript/2002","official_transcript_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2002/02-69.pdf","paragraphs":["Ms. Eskow stated that voluntary participation constitutes consent under the statute.","Ms. Frost argued that the text requires express consent from all parties.","Chief Justice Rehnquist challenged the assertion that the text does not require express consent."],"reargument":false,"sequence":1,"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 29-45","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2002/02-69.pdf","page_label":"file page 27, lines 29-45"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-39","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2002/02-69.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/2002/02-69.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 5-15"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 47-43","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2002/02-69.pdf","page_label":"file page 50, lines 47-43"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 51, lines 45-47","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2002/02-69.pdf","page_label":"file page 51, lines 45-47"}]}],"caption":"Roell v. Withrow","case_history":[{"changed_at":"2026-08-29T20:06:31.352627Z","explanation":"An official oral-argument transcript was verified.","status":"argued"},{"changed_at":"2026-08-29T20:06:31.362906Z","explanation":"An official oral-argument transcript was verified.","status":"argued"}],"case_status":"argued","dek":"the sides that brought the case argue that proceeding before a magistrate judge implies consent. the opposing sides insist that express consent is required by statute.","dek_sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 29-45","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2002/02-69.pdf","page_label":"file page 27, lines 29-45"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-39","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2002/02-69.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 17-39"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 47-43","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2002/02-69.pdf","page_label":"file page 50, lines 47-43"}],"dispositions":[],"latest_court_document_date":"2003-02-26T00:00:00Z","maturity":"official_transcript","official_detail_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcript/2002","official_disposition_urls":[],"official_docket_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/02-69.html","primary_docket":"02-69","revisions":[{"correction_note":"Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.","created_at":"2026-08-31T16:28:35.536104Z","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 whether a party's voluntary participation in a magistrate judge's trial satisfies the consent requirement of 28 U.S.C. section 636(c)(1)."],"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 29-45","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2002/02-69.pdf","page_label":"file page 27, lines 29-45"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-39","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2002/02-69.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 17-39"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 47-43","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2002/02-69.pdf","page_label":"file page 50, lines 47-43"}]},{"heading":"How the case got here","paragraphs":["The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on February 26, 2003."],"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2002/02-69.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 5-15"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 51, lines 45-47","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2002/02-69.pdf","page_label":"file page 51, lines 45-47"}]},{"heading":"What each side wants","paragraphs":["the sides that brought the case want the Court to recognize that voluntary participation implies consent.","the opposing sides want the Court to require express written consent for magistrate jurisdiction."],"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 29-45","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2002/02-69.pdf","page_label":"file page 27, lines 29-45"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-39","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2002/02-69.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 17-39"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 47-43","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2002/02-69.pdf","page_label":"file page 50, lines 47-43"}]},{"heading":"What each side says","paragraphs":["the sides that brought the case argue that the statute's plain language grants authority upon party consent.","the opposing sides argue that the Magistrates Act and Rule 73(b) mandate express consent."],"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 29-45","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2002/02-69.pdf","page_label":"file page 27, lines 29-45"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-39","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2002/02-69.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 17-39"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 47-43","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2002/02-69.pdf","page_label":"file page 50, lines 47-43"}]},{"heading":"What the justices asked","paragraphs":["Chief Justice Rehnquist asked whether the text requires express consent.","Chief Justice Rehnquist questioned the interpretation of the statutory language."],"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 51, lines 45-47","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2002/02-69.pdf","page_label":"file page 51, lines 45-47"}]},{"heading":"Why it matters","paragraphs":["This dispute defines the scope of magistrate judge authority. It determines whether parties can waive constitutional rights by participating. It affects the efficiency of federal district court operations. It clarifies the procedural requirements for case resolution."],"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 29-45","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2002/02-69.pdf","page_label":"file page 27, lines 29-45"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-39","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2002/02-69.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 17-39"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 47-43","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2002/02-69.pdf","page_label":"file page 50, lines 47-43"}]},{"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/2002/02-69.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 5-15"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 51, lines 45-47","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2002/02-69.pdf","page_label":"file page 51, lines 45-47"}]}],"slug":"2002-02-69-roell-v-withrow","term":"2002","title":"Does proceeding before a magistrate judge imply consent to its jurisdiction?","title_sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 29-45","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2002/02-69.pdf","page_label":"file page 27, lines 29-45"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-39","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2002/02-69.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 17-39"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 47-43","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2002/02-69.pdf","page_label":"file page 50, lines 47-43"}],"topics":[],"undated_disposition_date_fallback":null,"updated_at":"2026-09-05T03:22:24Z"}