October Term 2008 · Docket 07-10374

Can New York Block Federal Prisoner Lawsuits in State Courts?

Prisoners argue New York bars federal claims. The State claims its law complies with federal rules.

Official caption
Haywood v. Drown
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.
  2. — 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

    the side that brought the case argues New York law blocks federal claims.

    The State argues its law satisfies federal requirements.

    questions_and_answers

    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

This case tests state court access for federal claims.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on December 3, 2008.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

the side that brought the case wants to sue in state court under federal law.

The State wants to keep federal claims out of its courts.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

the side that brought the case argues the state law discriminates against federal claims.

The State argues its law treats federal and state claims equally.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Chief Justice Roberts asked if the issue is jurisdictional.

Justice Kennedy asked if the state can offer a damages alternative.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

Prisoners need a forum to seek damages for rights violations. States control access to their courts for federal claims.

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