October Term 2009 · Docket 08-1200
Does a debt collector's good-faith legal error violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act?
The dispute centers on whether a debt collector commits a violation when it relies on a mistaken but reasonable interpretation of the law.
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
Mr. Russell argued that the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act does not allow ignorance of the law as a defense.
Mr. Coakley stated that the text of the statute is the starting point for discerning congressional intent.
Chief Justice Roberts questioned the function of the bona fide error clause if intentional is read broadly.
Justice Scalia focused on the definition of the word intentional as the central issue in the case.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 4-32 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 4-32
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 20-24 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 20-24
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 8-18 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 8-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 33, lines 20-36 — Transcript, file page 33, lines 20-36
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 26-34 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 26-34
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 22-36 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 22-36
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 56, lines 48-26 — Transcript, file page 56, lines 48-26
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 28-30 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 28-30
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 14-52 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 14-52
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 16-18 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 16-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 34-36 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 34-36
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 42-44 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 42-44
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 26-28 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 26-28
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 38-44 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 38-44
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 48-12 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 48-12
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 8-16 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 8-16
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 32-40 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 32-40
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 52-32 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 52-32
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
The case tests the scope of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. the side that brought the case argues the law bans all violations, including honest mistakes. the opposing side argues the law targets only intentional misconduct. The Court must define the term intentional in this context.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 4-32 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 4-32
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 20-24 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 20-24
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 33, lines 20-36 — Transcript, file page 33, lines 20-36
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 56, lines 48-26 — Transcript, file page 56, lines 48-26
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on January 13, 2010.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 8-18 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 8-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 28-30 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 28-30
What each side wants
the side that brought the case wants the Court to hold that any violation of the Act is actionable, regardless of the collector's intent.
the opposing side wants the Court to hold that the Act requires proof of intentional misconduct, excluding good-faith errors.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 4-32 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 4-32
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 20-24 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 20-24
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 33, lines 20-36 — Transcript, file page 33, lines 20-36
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 56, lines 48-26 — Transcript, file page 56, lines 48-26
What each side says
the side that brought the case argues that Congress rarely allows ignorance of the law as a defense to civil liability.
the opposing side argues that the statutory text and congressional intent require a finding of intentional conduct.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 4-32 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 4-32
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 20-24 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 20-24
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 33, lines 20-36 — Transcript, file page 33, lines 20-36
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 56, lines 48-26 — Transcript, file page 56, lines 48-26
What the justices asked
Chief Justice Roberts asked what work the phrase bona fide error does if intentional means what the side that brought the case says.
Justice Scalia asked whether litigation constitutes debt collection activity under the statute.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 26-34 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 26-34
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 22-36 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 22-36
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 28-30 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 28-30
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 14-52 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 14-52
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 16-18 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 16-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 34-36 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 34-36
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 42-44 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 42-44
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 26-28 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 26-28
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 38-44 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 38-44
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 48-12 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 48-12
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 8-16 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 8-16
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 32-40 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 32-40
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 52-32 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 52-32
Why it matters
The outcome defines the standard for civil liability under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. It determines whether debt collectors face strict liability for legal errors. It shapes the risk profile for legal professionals advising clients on debt collection. It clarifies the boundary between permissible legal interpretation and actionable misconduct.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 4-32 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 4-32
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 20-24 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 20-24
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 33, lines 20-36 — Transcript, file page 33, lines 20-36
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 56, lines 48-26 — Transcript, file page 56, lines 48-26
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 3, lines 8-18 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 8-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 26-34 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 26-34
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 22-36 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 22-36
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 28-30 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 28-30
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 14-52 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 14-52
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 16-18 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 16-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 34-36 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 34-36
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 42-44 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 42-44
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 26-28 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 26-28
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 38-44 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 38-44
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 48-12 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 48-12
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 8-16 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 8-16
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 32-40 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 32-40
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 52-32 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 52-32
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 23, lines 4-32 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 4-32
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 20-24 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 20-24
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 33, lines 20-36 — Transcript, file page 33, lines 20-36
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 56, lines 48-26 — Transcript, file page 56, lines 48-26
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 4-32 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 4-32
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 20-24 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 20-24
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 33, lines 20-36 — Transcript, file page 33, lines 20-36
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 56, lines 48-26 — Transcript, file page 56, lines 48-26
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.