October Term 2008 · Docket 07-1437
Can parties appeal a district court's refusal to hear state claims?
Carlsbad Technology and HIF Bio dispute whether federal courts must dismiss appeals of remand orders involving supplemental jurisdiction.
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
Glenn Rhodes argued the bar does not apply to discretionary supplemental jurisdiction decisions.
Justice Stevens asked why the Court could not apply the plain language of the statute.
advocate_contention
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 47-9 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 47-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 45-3 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 45-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 31-35 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 31-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 9-21 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 9-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 27-19 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 27-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 14, lines 29-39 — Transcript, file page 14, lines 29-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 14, lines 45-3 — Transcript, file page 14, lines 45-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 20, lines 13-45 — Transcript, file page 20, lines 13-45
- 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 5, lines 19-31 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 19-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 43-17 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 43-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 41-19 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 41-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 29-49 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 29-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 35-9 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 35-9
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
The case tests the scope of 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d). This statute generally bars appeals of remand orders. The parties argue over whether this bar applies when a district court declines supplemental jurisdiction over state claims.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 20, lines 13-45 — Transcript, file page 20, lines 13-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-17
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on February 24, 2009.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
What each side wants
Carlsbad Technology wants the Supreme Court to allow an appeal of the remand order.
HIF Bio wants the Supreme Court to uphold the bar on appealing the remand order.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 20, lines 13-45 — Transcript, file page 20, lines 13-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-17
What each side says
Carlsbad Technology argues the statutory bar does not cover discretionary refusals of supplemental jurisdiction.
HIF Bio argues the statutory bar covers all remand orders, including those based on supplemental jurisdiction.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 20, lines 13-45 — Transcript, file page 20, lines 13-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-17
What the justices asked
Chief Justice Roberts asked if the rule could limit appeals to unusual situations.
Justice Ginsburg asked why ownership disputes qualify as federal questions rather than state property issues.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 47-9 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 47-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 45-3 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 45-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 31-35 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 31-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 9-21 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 9-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 27-19 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 27-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 14, lines 29-39 — Transcript, file page 14, lines 29-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 14, lines 45-3 — Transcript, file page 14, lines 45-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 19-31 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 19-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 43-17 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 43-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 41-19 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 41-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 29-49 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 29-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 35-9 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 35-9
Why it matters
This dispute determines whether federal courts can review discretionary remand decisions. It affects the finality of state court proceedings. It shapes the balance between federal and state judicial authority.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 20, lines 13-45 — Transcript, file page 20, lines 13-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-17
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 10, lines 47-9 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 47-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 45-3 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 45-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 31-35 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 31-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 9-21 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 9-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 27-19 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 27-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 14, lines 29-39 — Transcript, file page 14, lines 29-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 14, lines 45-3 — Transcript, file page 14, lines 45-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 19-31 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 19-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 43-17 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 43-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 41-19 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 41-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 29-49 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 29-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 35-9 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 35-9
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 13-45 — Transcript, file page 20, lines 13-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 20, lines 13-45 — Transcript, file page 20, lines 13-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-17
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.