October Term 2009 · Docket 08-240
Does the PMPA cover rent hikes that force dealers out?
Dealers claim Shell raised rents to force them out. Shell says the law only covers formal terminations.
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. Lamken argued Congress enacted the PMPA to regulate specific actions.
He stated the law targets termination and non-renewal.
Mr. Farraher argued the jury found Shell engaged in prohibited conduct.
He claimed Shell raised rents to force dealers out of business.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 7-19 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 7-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 21-33 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 21-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 21, lines 5-21 — Transcript, file page 21, lines 5-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 30, lines 43-25 — Transcript, file page 30, lines 43-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 21-11 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 21-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 7-19 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 7-19
- 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 29-35 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 29-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 51-7 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 51-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 55, lines 51-21 — Transcript, file page 55, lines 51-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 58, lines 23-25 — Transcript, file page 58, lines 23-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 41-1 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 41-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 47-15 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 47-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 51-3 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 51-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 19-21 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 19-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 29-31 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 29-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 41-43 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 41-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 7-9 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 7-9
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
The case tests the scope of the PMPA. Dealers argue rent hikes count as termination. Shell argues the law requires a formal end to the contract.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 21, lines 5-21 — Transcript, file page 21, lines 5-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 30, lines 43-25 — Transcript, file page 30, lines 43-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 21-11 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 21-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 55, lines 51-21 — Transcript, file page 55, lines 51-21
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on January 19, 2010.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 7-19 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 7-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 58, lines 23-25 — Transcript, file page 58, lines 23-25
What each side wants
Dealers want the PMPA to cover rent hikes that force them out.
Shell wants the PMPA to apply only to formal contract endings.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 21, lines 5-21 — Transcript, file page 21, lines 5-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 30, lines 43-25 — Transcript, file page 30, lines 43-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 21-11 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 21-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 55, lines 51-21 — Transcript, file page 55, lines 51-21
What each side says
Dealers argue rent hikes are a prohibited constructive termination.
Shell argues the statute only covers explicit termination or non-renewal.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 21, lines 5-21 — Transcript, file page 21, lines 5-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 30, lines 43-25 — Transcript, file page 30, lines 43-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 21-11 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 21-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 55, lines 51-21 — Transcript, file page 55, lines 51-21
What the justices asked
Chief Justice Roberts asked what Williston said about the contract.
Justice Kennedy asked if two franchisees facing the same rent hike get different results based on savings.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 7-19 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 7-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 21-33 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 21-33
- 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 29-35 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 29-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 51-7 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 51-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 58, lines 23-25 — Transcript, file page 58, lines 23-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 41-1 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 41-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 47-15 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 47-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 51-3 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 51-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 19-21 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 19-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 29-31 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 29-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 41-43 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 41-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 7-9 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 7-9
Why it matters
The outcome defines the scope of federal franchise protection. It determines whether dealers can sue over economic pressure. It clarifies the boundary between state contract law and federal regulation.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 21, lines 5-21 — Transcript, file page 21, lines 5-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 30, lines 43-25 — Transcript, file page 30, lines 43-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 21-11 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 21-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 55, lines 51-21 — Transcript, file page 55, lines 51-21
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 7-19 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 7-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 21-33 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 21-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 7-19 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 7-19
- 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 29-35 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 29-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 51-7 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 51-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 58, lines 23-25 — Transcript, file page 58, lines 23-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 41-1 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 41-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 47-15 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 47-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 51-3 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 51-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 19-21 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 19-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 29-31 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 29-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 41-43 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 41-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 7-9 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 7-9
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 21, lines 5-21 — Transcript, file page 21, lines 5-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 30, lines 43-25 — Transcript, file page 30, lines 43-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 21-11 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 21-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 55, lines 51-21 — Transcript, file page 55, lines 51-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 21, lines 5-21 — Transcript, file page 21, lines 5-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 30, lines 43-25 — Transcript, file page 30, lines 43-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 21-11 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 21-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 55, lines 51-21 — Transcript, file page 55, lines 51-21
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.