October Term 2007 · Docket 06-1431
Does Section 1981 allow retaliation claims?
The parties dispute whether federal law covers employee retaliation.
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
CBOCS West argues the statute text excludes retaliation.
Humphries argues the statute enforces anti-discrimination goals.
questions_asked_by_justices
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 45-37 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 45-37
- 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 7-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 21-23 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 21-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 45-49 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 45-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 5-9 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 5-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 44, lines 51-17 — Transcript, file page 44, lines 51-17
- 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 19-21 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 19-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 41-45 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 41-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 51-3 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 51-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 7-9 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 7-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 19-21 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 19-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 31-33 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 31-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 37-43 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 37-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 5-7 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 5-7
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
This case tests the scope of a federal civil rights statute.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 45-37 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 45-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-3 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 44, lines 51-17 — Transcript, file page 44, lines 51-17
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on February 20, 2008.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-15
What each side wants
CBOCS West wants the Court to reject the retaliation claim.
Humphries wants the Court to uphold the retaliation claim.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 45-37 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 45-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-3 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 44, lines 51-17 — Transcript, file page 44, lines 51-17
What each side says
CBOCS West argues the statute lacks a retaliation provision.
Humphries argues the statute protects against retaliatory acts.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 45-37 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 45-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-3 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 44, lines 51-17 — Transcript, file page 44, lines 51-17
What the justices asked
Justice Scalia asked if the 1991 amendment changed prior law.
Justice Ginsburg asked if retaliation existed before 1991.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 21-23 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 21-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 45-49 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 45-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 5-9 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 5-9
- 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 19-21 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 19-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 41-45 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 41-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 51-3 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 51-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 7-9 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 7-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 19-21 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 19-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 31-33 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 31-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 37-43 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 37-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 5-7 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 5-7
Why it matters
This dispute defines the scope of federal employment protections.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 45-37 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 45-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-3 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 44, lines 51-17 — Transcript, file page 44, lines 51-17
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 7-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 21-23 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 21-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 45-49 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 45-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 5-9 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 5-9
- 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 19-21 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 19-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 41-45 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 41-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 51-3 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 51-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 7-9 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 7-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 19-21 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 19-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 31-33 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 31-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 37-43 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 37-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 5-7 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 5-7
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 27, lines 45-37 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 45-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-3 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 44, lines 51-17 — Transcript, file page 44, lines 51-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 45-37 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 45-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-3 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 44, lines 51-17 — Transcript, file page 44, lines 51-17
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.