October Term 2001 · Docket 01-455
Does a new law breach a contract immediately?
the sides that brought the case claim a new law broke their mortgage contracts. The government says the claim is too late.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
the sides that brought the case argue the new law broke their contracts immediately.
The government argues the claim expired before filing.
the sides that brought the case cite fairness in limitation periods.
The government cites the six-year filing deadline.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 29, lines 17-55 — Transcript, file page 29, lines 17-55
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-19 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 19-39 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 19-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 56, lines 9-1 — Transcript, file page 56, lines 9-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 58, lines 3-6 — Transcript, file page 58, lines 3-6
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
This case tests when a legal claim starts. the sides that brought the case argue a new law broke their contracts. The government argues the claim expired.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 29, lines 17-55 — Transcript, file page 29, lines 17-55
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-19 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 19-39 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 19-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 56, lines 9-1 — Transcript, file page 56, lines 9-1
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on April 15, 2002.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 58, lines 3-6 — Transcript, file page 58, lines 3-6
What each side wants
the sides that brought the case want the Court to accept their late claim.
The government wants the Court to dismiss the claim.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 29, lines 17-55 — Transcript, file page 29, lines 17-55
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-19 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 19-39 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 19-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 56, lines 9-1 — Transcript, file page 56, lines 9-1
What each side says
the sides that brought the case argue the new law broke their contracts immediately.
The government argues the claim expired before filing.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 29, lines 17-55 — Transcript, file page 29, lines 17-55
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-19 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 19-39 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 19-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 56, lines 9-1 — Transcript, file page 56, lines 9-1
What the justices asked
Does a new law count as an immediate breach?
When does the six-year clock start?
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 58, lines 3-6 — Transcript, file page 58, lines 3-6
Why it matters
This case defines when legal claims expire. It affects how courts treat new laws. It shapes contract rights for all parties.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 29, lines 17-55 — Transcript, file page 29, lines 17-55
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-19 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 19-39 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 19-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 56, lines 9-1 — Transcript, file page 56, lines 9-1
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 58, lines 3-6 — Transcript, file page 58, lines 3-6
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 29, lines 17-55 — Transcript, file page 29, lines 17-55
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-19 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 19-39 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 19-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 56, lines 9-1 — Transcript, file page 56, lines 9-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 29, lines 17-55 — Transcript, file page 29, lines 17-55
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-19 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 19-39 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 19-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 56, lines 9-1 — Transcript, file page 56, lines 9-1
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.