October Term 2009 · Docket 08-1553

Does the Carmack Amendment cover the inland leg of an import shipment?

the sides that brought the case argue the statute excludes import legs. the opposing sides claim it covers all domestic transport.

Official caption
Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd. v. Regal-Beloit Corp.
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

    Mr. Ballenger argued the statute excluded import legs for a century.

    Mr. Yang addressed questions about the receiving carrier.

    Chief Justice Roberts asked which statutory language prevails over boilerplate.

    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

The case tests the scope of the Carmack Amendment. It asks if the law covers the inland leg of an import shipment. the sides that brought the case say the statute excludes this leg. the opposing sides say the law covers all domestic transport. The dispute centers on statutory interpretation.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on March 24, 2010.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

the sides that brought the case want the Court to affirm the exclusion of import legs.

the opposing sides want the Court to apply the statute to import legs.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

the sides that brought the case argue the statute has excluded import legs for a century.

the opposing sides argue the 1978 codification expanded the statute's scope.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Sotomayor asked if the position differs from the Solicitor General's view.

Justice Ginsburg noted uniformity differs between state and federal statutes.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

The outcome defines the scope of federal liability for domestic transport. It clarifies which carriers face statutory liability for import shipments. It resolves a conflict in statutory interpretation.

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