October Term 2002 · Docket 01-705

Does a missed 1993 deadline bar coal companies from paying benefits?

Coal companies argue a missed deadline voids their payment duty. The government argues the deadline is not strict.

Official caption
Barnhart v. Peabody Coal Co.
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Argued
Sources analyzed through
Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  2. — 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.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    Ms. McDowell argued the deadline is mandatory but not jurisdictional.

    Mr. Roberts argued the word shall means may.

    Mr. Buscemi argued the companies should not get a windfall.

    Mr. Sutton cited the assignment provision in the brief.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

The case tests whether a 1993 deadline is mandatory. It affects who pays for retired coal miners.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on October 8, 2002.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

The government wants coal companies to pay benefits.

Coal companies want to avoid paying benefits.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

The government argues the deadline is not strict.

Coal companies argue the deadline is mandatory.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Does the word shall create a strict deadline?

Does a missed deadline void the payment duty?

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This case determines who pays for retired coal miners. It affects the financial burden on coal companies. It impacts the availability of benefits for workers.

Official sources for this section

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 Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON