October Term 2013 · Docket 12-1036

Does CAFA cover state parens patriae suits?

Mississippi seeks to keep its consumer suit in state court. AU Optronics wants federal jurisdiction.

Official caption
Mississippi, Inc. ex rel. Hood v. AU Optronics 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. Massey argued CAFA text excludes state parens patriae actions.

    Mr. Curran argued the statute covers all mass actions.

    questions_asked_by_justices

    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

Mississippi argues CAFA excludes state parens patriae actions. AU Optronics claims the statute covers all mass actions.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on November 6, 2013.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

Mississippi wants to keep the case in state court.

AU Optronics wants the case moved to federal court.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

Mississippi argues CAFA text excludes state parens patriae actions.

AU Optronics argues the statute covers all mass actions.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Sotomayor asked about settled consumer actions.

Justice Alito questioned the definition of named plaintiffs.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This case defines federal court power over state consumer suits. It affects how states protect citizens from corporate harm.

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