October Term 2007 · Docket 07-474
Can a public employee sue for damages based on personal dislike?
A fired worker claims her boss acted out of personal animus. The state argues courts cannot review such subjective personnel choices.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — 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. Metcalf argued federal courts should not review everyday employer decisions.
Mr. Katyal stated the Ninth Circuit required a suspect class for claims.
Ms. Blatt argued class-of-one claims fail in public employment contexts.
Justice Roberts asked if minor time-sheet errors justify a termination decision.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 45-5 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 45-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 7-29 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 7-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 41-31 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 41-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 19-29 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 19-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 41-11 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 41-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 46, lines 17-43 — Transcript, file page 46, lines 17-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 48, lines 23-49 — Transcript, file page 48, lines 23-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 13-33 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 13-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 35-45 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 35-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 21-27 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 21-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 35-37 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 35-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 9-19 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 9-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 35-37 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 35-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 45-5 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 45-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 7-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 11-37 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 11-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 51-13 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 51-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 37-43 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 37-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 47-51 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 47-51
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
This case tests the limits of the Equal Protection Clause. It asks if a single public employee can sue for damages when a boss acts out of personal dislike. The state argues this power belongs to the employer, not the courts.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 41-31 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 41-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 46, lines 17-43 — Transcript, file page 46, lines 17-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 48, lines 23-49 — Transcript, file page 48, lines 23-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 13-33 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 13-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 9-19 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 9-19
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on April 21, 2008.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 35-37 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 35-37
What each side wants
the side that brought the case wants a court to award damages for personal animus.
The state wants courts to avoid reviewing subjective personnel decisions.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 41-31 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 41-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 46, lines 17-43 — Transcript, file page 46, lines 17-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 48, lines 23-49 — Transcript, file page 48, lines 23-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 13-33 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 13-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 9-19 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 9-19
What each side says
the side that brought the case argues the Constitution bans arbitrary treatment of any individual.
The state argues courts lack power to second-guess everyday employment choices.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 41-31 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 41-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 46, lines 17-43 — Transcript, file page 46, lines 17-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 48, lines 23-49 — Transcript, file page 48, lines 23-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 13-33 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 13-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 9-19 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 9-19
What the justices asked
Justice Breyer asked if a supervisor can simply dislike an employee.
Justice Scalia asked if the state accepts a rational-basis test.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 45-5 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 45-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 7-29 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 7-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 19-29 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 19-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 41-11 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 41-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 35-45 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 35-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 21-27 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 21-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 35-37 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 35-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 35-37 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 35-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 45-5 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 45-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 7-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 11-37 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 11-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 51-13 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 51-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 37-43 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 37-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 47-51 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 47-51
Why it matters
This dispute defines the boundary between public accountability and private management. It determines whether courts can police subjective workplace motives. It shapes the daily reality of public-sector employment relationships.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 41-31 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 41-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 46, lines 17-43 — Transcript, file page 46, lines 17-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 48, lines 23-49 — Transcript, file page 48, lines 23-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 13-33 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 13-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 9-19 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 9-19
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 45-5 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 45-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 7-29 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 7-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 19-29 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 19-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 41-11 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 41-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 35-45 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 35-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 21-27 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 21-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 35-37 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 35-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 35-37 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 35-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 45-5 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 45-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 7-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 11-37 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 11-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 51-13 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 51-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 37-43 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 37-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 47-51 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 47-51
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 26, lines 41-31 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 41-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 46, lines 17-43 — Transcript, file page 46, lines 17-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 48, lines 23-49 — Transcript, file page 48, lines 23-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 13-33 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 13-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 9-19 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 9-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 41-31 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 41-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 46, lines 17-43 — Transcript, file page 46, lines 17-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 48, lines 23-49 — Transcript, file page 48, lines 23-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 13-33 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 13-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 9-19 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 9-19
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.