October Term 2009 · Docket 08-645
Does a ne exeat order grant custody rights under the Hague Convention?
The dispute centers on whether a ne exeat order grants custody rights under the Hague Convention.
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
Ms. Howe argued the Convention requires returning abducted children to their habitual residence.
Ms. Howe stated the Convention aims to prevent abduction and ensure proper court resolution.
Ms. Anders argued the ne exeat provision prevents the specific harm the Convention addresses.
Mr. Hays argued custody and access rights are distinct substantive legal concepts.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 19, lines 15-23 — Transcript, file page 19, lines 15-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 29, lines 37-19 — Transcript, file page 29, lines 37-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 15-15 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 15-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 17-31 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 17-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 11-47 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 11-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 3-5 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 3-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 11-33 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 11-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 47-7 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 47-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 5-7 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 5-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 11-13 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 11-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 19-21 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 19-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 45-49 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 45-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 23-31 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 23-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 47-3 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 47-3
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
The case involves a child custody dispute under the Hague Convention. The parties disagree on the legal effect of a ne exeat order. One side argues the order grants custody rights. The other side argues it only grants access rights. The Court must interpret the Convention's definitions.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 19, lines 15-23 — Transcript, file page 19, lines 15-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 29, lines 37-19 — Transcript, file page 29, lines 37-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-13
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on January 12, 2010.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-15
What each side wants
the side that brought the case wants the Court to recognize the ne exeat order as a custody right.
the opposing side wants the Court to classify the order as an access right only.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 19, lines 15-23 — Transcript, file page 19, lines 15-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 29, lines 37-19 — Transcript, file page 29, lines 37-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-13
What each side says
the side that brought the case argues the order prevents abduction and aligns with the Convention's goals.
the opposing side argues the Convention distinguishes custody from access and limits return remedies.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 19, lines 15-23 — Transcript, file page 19, lines 15-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 29, lines 37-19 — Transcript, file page 29, lines 37-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-13
What the justices asked
Justice Sotomayor asked if the woman must go to the Chilean court.
Justice Ginsburg asked if the argument relies on the statute rather than the order.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 15-15 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 15-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 17-31 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 17-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 11-47 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 11-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 3-5 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 3-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 11-33 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 11-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 47-7 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 47-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 5-7 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 5-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 11-13 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 11-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 19-21 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 19-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 45-49 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 45-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 23-31 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 23-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 47-3 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 47-3
Why it matters
This case defines the scope of custody rights under the Hague Convention. It determines how courts handle international child removals. The outcome shapes future custody disputes involving foreign orders. It impacts the balance between parental rights and child welfare.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 19, lines 15-23 — Transcript, file page 19, lines 15-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 29, lines 37-19 — Transcript, file page 29, lines 37-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-13
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 7-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 15-15 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 15-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 17-31 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 17-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 11-47 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 11-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 3-5 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 3-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 11-33 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 11-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 47-7 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 47-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 5-7 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 5-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 11-13 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 11-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 19-21 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 19-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 45-49 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 45-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 23-31 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 23-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 47-3 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 47-3
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 19, lines 15-23 — Transcript, file page 19, lines 15-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 29, lines 37-19 — Transcript, file page 29, lines 37-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 19, lines 15-23 — Transcript, file page 19, lines 15-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 29, lines 37-19 — Transcript, file page 29, lines 37-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-13
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.