October Term 2008 · Docket 08-660
Does the government count as a party for appeal deadlines when it declines to intervene?
Relator Eisenstein argues the government is not a party. The City argues the government is a party.
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
Mr. Rephen argued the government is not a party.
Mr. Schor argued the government is a party.
Justice Ginsburg questioned the need for extra time.
Justice Scalia emphasized the rule's clarity.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 7-13 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 7-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 7-23 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 7-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-41 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 43-11 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 43-11
- 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 35-47 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 35-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 41, lines 27-29 — Transcript, file page 41, lines 27-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 13-19 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 13-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 25-37 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 25-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 29-41 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 29-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 19-27 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 19-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 41-49 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 41-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 13-29 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 13-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 47-3 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 47-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 25-35 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 25-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 39-43 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 39-43
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
The dispute centers on the appeal deadline. The relator seeks a 30-day window. The City seeks a 60-day window.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 7-23 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 7-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-41 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 41, lines 27-29 — Transcript, file page 41, lines 27-29
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on April 21, 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
The relator wants a 30-day appeal deadline.
The City wants a 60-day appeal deadline.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 7-23 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 7-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-41 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 41, lines 27-29 — Transcript, file page 41, lines 27-29
What each side says
The relator argues the government is not a party.
The City argues the government is a party.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 7-23 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 7-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-41 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 41, lines 27-29 — Transcript, file page 41, lines 27-29
What the justices asked
Justice Ginsburg asked about the advantage of extra time.
Justice Scalia asked if the rule is absolute.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 7-13 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 7-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 43-11 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 43-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 35-47 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 35-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 13-19 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 13-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 25-37 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 25-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 29-41 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 29-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 19-27 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 19-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 41-49 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 41-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 13-29 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 13-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 47-3 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 47-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 25-35 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 25-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 39-43 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 39-43
Why it matters
This case defines the appeal deadline for qui tam suits. It affects how quickly relators must act. It impacts government oversight of fraud cases.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 7-23 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 7-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-41 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 41, lines 27-29 — Transcript, file page 41, lines 27-29
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 7-13 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 7-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 43-11 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 43-11
- 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 35-47 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 35-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 13-19 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 13-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 25-37 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 25-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 29-41 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 29-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 19-27 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 19-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 41-49 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 41-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 13-29 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 13-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 47-3 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 47-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 25-35 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 25-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 39-43 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 39-43
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 25, lines 7-23 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 7-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-41 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 41, lines 27-29 — Transcript, file page 41, lines 27-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 7-23 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 7-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-41 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 41, lines 27-29 — Transcript, file page 41, lines 27-29
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.