October Term 2012 · Docket 11-1175

Does the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act bar courts from awarding costs to prevailing defendants?

The dispute centers on whether a specific debt collection statute overrides the general federal rule allowing courts to award costs to winning defendants.

Official caption
Marx v. General Revenue 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.

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

    the side that brought the case asserts the specific statute provides a different rule for costs.

    the opposing side asserts the general rule applies unless expressly repealed by statute.

    Justice Breyer questioned the legislative intent behind the specific statutory language.

    Justice Sotomayor asked if the specific statute meets the requirement for express repeal.

    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

This case tests the interaction between a specific federal statute and a general procedural rule. The core issue is whether the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act displaces the default rule for cost awards.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on November 7, 2012.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

the side that brought the case wants the court to deny the defendant's request for costs.

the opposing side wants the court to uphold the lower court's award of costs.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

the side that brought the case argues the specific statute displaces the general rule for cost awards.

the opposing side argues the general rule remains available because the statute does not expressly repeal it.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Breyer asked why the drafter included a provision for attorney fees but not costs.

Justice Ginsburg noted that the specific statute covers costs only under a different section.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This case determines whether prevailing defendants in debt collection suits can recover court costs. The outcome affects the financial burden on debt collectors and the scope of judicial discretion in awarding costs.

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