October Term 2002 · Docket 01-896

Does the Supreme Court have jurisdiction over this dispute?

Ford and Citibank argue the Court lacks jurisdiction. McCauley disputes this claim.

Official caption
Ford Motor Co. v. McCauley
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.

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

    Mr. Waxman addressed the jurisdiction question.

    Mr. Berman discussed the jurisdiction issue.

    Chief Justice Rehnquist called the case for argument.

    Chief Justice Rehnquist noted the case was submitted.

    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 parties dispute whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to hear the case.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on October 7, 2002.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

Ford and Citibank want the Court to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction.

McCauley wants the Court to accept the case and hear the merits.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

Ford and Citibank argue the Court lacks jurisdiction to decide the case.

McCauley argues the Court has jurisdiction to decide the case.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Chief Justice Rehnquist asked if the case was submitted.

Chief Justice Rehnquist called the case for argument.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

The outcome determines if the Supreme Court can review this specific legal dispute.

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