October Term 2008 · Docket 07-1216

Can a state court decide a federal due process claim on alternate grounds?

Philip Morris argues the Oregon Supreme Court ignored federal instructions. Williams argues the state court acted within its power.

Official caption
Philip Morris USA Inc. v. Williams
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

    Philip Morris claims the state court ignored federal due process rules.

    Williams argues the state court acted within its constitutional discretion.

    questions_asked_by_justices

    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

Philip Morris seeks a federal ruling on its due process claim. Williams defends the state court's alternate legal reasoning.

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

Philip Morris wants the Court to enforce its federal due process claim.

Williams wants the Court to uphold the state court's alternate reasoning.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

Philip Morris argues the state court failed to follow federal directions.

Williams argues state courts may resolve cases on alternate state law grounds.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Scalia asked what issue was debated four times.

Justice Ginsburg asked if state courts can use alternate grounds.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This case defines the boundary between state and federal court authority. It determines how lower courts handle conflicting legal standards.

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