October Term 2010 · Docket 09-846

Can a tribe sue twice for the same cotton loss?

The tribe seeks a second trial. The government demands a single recovery.

Official caption
United States v. Tohono O'odham Nation
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.

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

    Ms. Spinelli argued for the tribe.

    She said the suits differ.

    She cited different operative facts.

    Mr. Yang argued for the government. He said the claims match. He cited Section 1500. He argued for a single recovery.

    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 dispute centers on Section 1500. This statute limits duplicate lawsuits. The tribe wants a new trial. The government wants to block it.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on November 1, 2010.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

The tribe wants a second trial.

The government wants to stop the second suit.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

The tribe argues the suits differ.

The government argues the claims are identical.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Sotomayor asked about double recovery.

Justice Ginsburg asked about sequential suits.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This case defines duplicate claims. It affects tribal litigation rights. It clarifies federal court jurisdiction.

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