October Term 2013 · Docket 12-929

Can a contract clause override federal venue rules?

A construction firm wants to move a lawsuit to Virginia. The opposing party wants to keep it in Texas.

Official caption
Atlantic Marine Constr. Co. v. United States Dist. Court for Western Dist. Tex.
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

    the side that brought the case argued forum selection clauses are common in contracts. It urged the Court to enforce them as written.

    the opposing side argued the case belongs in Texas. It noted the work, witnesses, and evidence are located there.

    Justice Alito questioned the distinction between venue and jurisdiction. He cited a case where the court denied a motion to dismiss.

    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 case tests whether a contract clause can force a lawsuit into a specific court. the side that brought the case argues the clause is binding. the opposing side argues the clause cannot override federal law.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on October 9, 2013.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

the side that brought the case wants the court to enforce the contract clause. It seeks to move the case to Virginia.

the opposing side wants the court to keep the case in Texas. It seeks to litigate where the work occurred.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

the side that brought the case argues the clause is a binding contract term. It claims courts must enforce it as written.

the opposing side argues the clause cannot create jurisdiction. It claims federal law controls venue selection.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Kagan asked if parties can create personal jurisdiction by contract.

Justice Kennedy asked if treatises treat forum clauses as venue provisions.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This dispute defines the power of private contracts over federal court rules. It affects how businesses structure litigation risks. It determines whether parties can choose their forum by agreement.

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