October Term 2002 · Docket 01-757
Can the All Writs Act remove state class actions?
Syngenta seeks federal removal of a state class action settlement. Henson argues federal courts lack original jurisdiction to accept such cases.
Verified source milestones
- — 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
Syngenta cites Kikkonen v. Guardian Life to support removal of retained jurisdiction cases.
Henson asserts Congress defines removal limits, including original jurisdiction requirements.
Chief Justice Rehnquist noted the case is submitted after hearing both advocates.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 22, lines 15-35 — Transcript, file page 22, lines 15-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-3 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 34, lines 41-41 — Transcript, file page 34, lines 41-41
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
This dispute centers on federal removal power. Syngenta wants to move a state class action to federal court. Henson argues federal courts cannot accept cases lacking original jurisdiction.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 22, lines 15-35 — Transcript, file page 22, lines 15-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-3 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-3
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on October 15, 2002.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
What each side wants
Syngenta wants the Supreme Court to allow removal of the state class action to federal court.
Henson wants the Supreme Court to deny removal and keep the case in state court.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 22, lines 15-35 — Transcript, file page 22, lines 15-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-3 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-3
What each side says
Syngenta argues the All Writs Act permits removal when a state court retains jurisdiction over a settlement.
Henson argues the All Writs Act cannot remove cases that federal courts lack original jurisdiction to hear.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 22, lines 15-35 — Transcript, file page 22, lines 15-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-3 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-3
What the justices asked
Does the All Writs Act allow removal of a state class action settlement to federal court?
Can a federal court accept a case where the state court retained jurisdiction to manage the settlement?
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 34, lines 41-41 — Transcript, file page 34, lines 41-41
Why it matters
This case defines the boundary between state and federal court authority. It determines whether companies can move class action settlements to federal courts. The outcome shapes access to federal forums for complex civil disputes.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 22, lines 15-35 — Transcript, file page 22, lines 15-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-3 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-3
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 34, lines 41-41 — Transcript, file page 34, lines 41-41
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 22, lines 15-35 — Transcript, file page 22, lines 15-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-3 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 22, lines 15-35 — Transcript, file page 22, lines 15-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-3 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-3
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.