October Term 2005 · Docket 04-1140
Can a defendant recover attorney fees after successfully defending a removal?
the sides that brought the case seek fees for defending a removal motion. the opposing sides argue no statute grants this right.
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
Mr. Heldman argued Section 1447(c) allows fee awards when cases remand to state court.
Mr. Heldman noted no statute grants fees to defendants who successfully defend removal.
Mr. Chilton stated Congress has granted defendants removal rights since 1789.
Mr. Chilton asserted the opposing sides removed the case properly without dispute.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 13-31 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 13-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 5-9 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 5-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 27-29 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 27-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 13-25 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 13-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-11 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 13-15 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 13-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 21-27 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 21-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 43-47 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 43-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 39-5 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 39-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 5-13 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 5-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 33-54 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 33-54
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 19-33 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 19-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 47-7 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 47-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 29-33 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 29-33
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
This case tests whether federal law allows a defendant to recover attorney fees. The defendant successfully defended a motion to remand the case to state court. the sides that brought the case argue the removal statute implies this fee right. the opposing sides argue no statute grants fees for this specific defense.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 13-25 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 13-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-11 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-11
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on November 8, 2005.
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
the sides that brought the case want the Court to award them attorney fees for defending the removal.
the opposing sides want the Court to deny the fee request because no statute grants it.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 13-25 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 13-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-11 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-11
What each side says
the sides that brought the case argue Section 1447(c) implies a fee award for successful removal defenses.
the opposing sides argue no statute provides fees for defendants who successfully defend removal.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 13-25 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 13-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-11 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-11
What the justices asked
Justice Ginsburg asked if the fee issue was significant when the statute lacked fee provisions.
Chief Justice Roberts questioned if Congress understood Rule 11 overlap when passing the law.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 13-31 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 13-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 5-9 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 5-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 27-29 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 27-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 13-15 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 13-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 21-27 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 21-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 43-47 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 43-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 39-5 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 39-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 5-13 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 5-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 33-54 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 33-54
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 19-33 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 19-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 47-7 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 47-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 29-33 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 29-33
Why it matters
This dispute determines if defendants can recover costs for defending removal. It affects the financial risk of removing cases to federal court. It clarifies the scope of fee-shifting statutes in federal procedure.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 13-25 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 13-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-11 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-11
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 11, lines 13-31 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 13-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 5-9 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 5-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 27-29 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 27-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 13-15 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 13-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 21-27 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 21-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 43-47 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 43-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 39-5 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 39-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 5-13 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 5-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 33-54 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 33-54
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 19-33 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 19-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 47-7 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 47-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 29-33 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 29-33
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 25, lines 13-25 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 13-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-11 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 13-25 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 13-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-11 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-11
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.