October Term 2005 · Docket 05-416
Must inmates use prison grievance systems before suing?
The dispute centers on whether the Prison Litigation Reform Act forces inmates to exhaust internal prison appeals before filing federal lawsuits.
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
Ms. Perkell argued Congress intended to require inmates to comply with administrative grievance procedures.
Mr. Feder argued a procedural default rule should not be read into the PLRA.
Mr. Himmelfarb argued the Ninth Circuit decision contradicts the text, history, and purposes of the PLRA.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 37-54 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 37-54
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 29-31 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 29-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 20, lines 9-31 — Transcript, file page 20, lines 9-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 43-7 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 43-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-39 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 41-45 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 41-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 17-31 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 17-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 37-39 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 37-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 11-11 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 11-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 29-35 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 29-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 47-5 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 47-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 11-13 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 11-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 17-54 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 17-54
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 7-13 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 7-13
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
The case tests the scope of the Prison Litigation Reform Act. the sides that brought the case argue the law mandates using prison grievance procedures. the opposing sides claim the law allows inmates to skip those steps. The United States supports the sides that brought the case. The core conflict involves statutory interpretation and procedural requirements.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 20, lines 9-31 — Transcript, file page 20, lines 9-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 43-7 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 43-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-39 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-39
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on March 22, 2006.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-13
What each side wants
the sides that brought the case want the Court to mandate that inmates use prison grievance procedures before suing.
the opposing sides want the Court to allow inmates to ignore prison grievance procedures when filing suits.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 20, lines 9-31 — Transcript, file page 20, lines 9-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 43-7 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 43-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-39 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-39
What each side says
the sides that brought the case argue the statute text, history, and purpose require exhaustion of administrative remedies.
the opposing sides argue a procedural default rule should not be read into the statute.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 20, lines 9-31 — Transcript, file page 20, lines 9-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 43-7 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 43-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-39 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-39
What the justices asked
Justice Ginsburg asked about deference to first-line decisionmakers in prison settings.
Justice Breyer asked about the language of a predecessor act regarding available remedies.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 37-54 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 37-54
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 29-31 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 29-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 41-45 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 41-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 17-31 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 17-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 37-39 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 37-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 11-11 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 11-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 29-35 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 29-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 47-5 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 47-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 11-13 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 11-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 17-54 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 17-54
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 7-13 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 7-13
Why it matters
This case defines the procedural path for inmate lawsuits. It determines whether prisoners must navigate internal prison systems first. The outcome shapes access to federal courts for incarcerated individuals. It clarifies the balance between prison administration and judicial review.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 20, lines 9-31 — Transcript, file page 20, lines 9-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 43-7 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 43-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-39 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-39
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 10, lines 37-54 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 37-54
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 29-31 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 29-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 41-45 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 41-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 17-31 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 17-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 37-39 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 37-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 11-11 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 11-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 29-35 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 29-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 47-5 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 47-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 11-13 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 11-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 17-54 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 17-54
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 7-13 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 7-13
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 20, lines 9-31 — Transcript, file page 20, lines 9-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 43-7 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 43-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-39 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 20, lines 9-31 — Transcript, file page 20, lines 9-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 43-7 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 43-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-39 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-39
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.