October Term 2015 · Docket 14-1132
Does a state fraud claim seeking federal remedies trigger exclusive federal jurisdiction?
Merrill Lynch argues the case belongs in federal court. Manning argues state courts can hear the fraud claim.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — 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
Merrill Lynch contends the statutory language creates a straightforward test for federal jurisdiction.
Manning argues that state law claims do not seek redress under federal law.
Justice Sotomayor questioned how state law causes of action seek federal redress.
Justice Roberts asked if the plaintiffs are merely alleging fraud under state law.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 22-28 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 22-28
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 20-28 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 20-28
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 8-18 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 8-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 30, lines 38-10 — Transcript, file page 30, lines 38-10
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 30-4 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 30-4
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 24-32 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 24-32
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 48-4 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 48-4
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 55, lines 50-12 — Transcript, file page 55, lines 50-12
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 22-4 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 22-4
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 6-20 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 6-20
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 14-14 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 14-14
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 16-30 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 16-30
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 60, lines 44-46 — Transcript, file page 60, lines 44-46
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 4-8 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 4-8
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 26-28 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 26-28
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 32-44 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 32-44
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 10-12 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 10-12
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 16-18 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 16-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 50-1 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 50-1
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
The dispute centers on whether federal courts hold exclusive jurisdiction over securities fraud claims. the sides that brought the case seek to remove the case to federal court. the opposing sides want to keep the case in state court.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 20-28 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 20-28
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 30, lines 38-10 — Transcript, file page 30, lines 38-10
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 55, lines 50-12 — Transcript, file page 55, lines 50-12
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 22-4 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 22-4
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on December 1, 2015.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 8-18 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 8-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 60, lines 44-46 — Transcript, file page 60, lines 44-46
What each side wants
Merrill Lynch wants the Supreme Court to affirm the federal court's jurisdiction.
Manning wants the Supreme Court to allow the state court to hear the case.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 20-28 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 20-28
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 30, lines 38-10 — Transcript, file page 30, lines 38-10
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 55, lines 50-12 — Transcript, file page 55, lines 50-12
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 22-4 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 22-4
What each side says
Merrill Lynch argues Exchange Act Section 27 grants federal courts exclusive jurisdiction over enforcement suits.
Manning argues jurisdictional statutes should not intrude on state authority without clear congressional intent.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 20-28 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 20-28
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 30, lines 38-10 — Transcript, file page 30, lines 38-10
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 55, lines 50-12 — Transcript, file page 55, lines 50-12
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 22-4 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 22-4
What the justices asked
Justice Alito asked if the test depends solely on the complaint's allegations.
Justice Ginsburg asked if amending the complaint to cite state law would change the outcome.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 22-28 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 22-28
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 30-4 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 30-4
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 24-32 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 24-32
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 48-4 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 48-4
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 6-20 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 6-20
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 14-14 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 14-14
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 16-30 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 16-30
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 60, lines 44-46 — Transcript, file page 60, lines 44-46
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 4-8 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 4-8
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 26-28 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 26-28
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 32-44 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 32-44
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 10-12 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 10-12
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 16-18 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 16-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 50-1 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 50-1
Why it matters
This case determines which courts hear securities fraud claims. It affects the balance of power between state and federal judicial systems. It shapes the procedural path for investors seeking redress.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 20-28 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 20-28
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 30, lines 38-10 — Transcript, file page 30, lines 38-10
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 55, lines 50-12 — Transcript, file page 55, lines 50-12
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 22-4 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 22-4
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 10, lines 22-28 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 22-28
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 8-18 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 8-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 30-4 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 30-4
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 24-32 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 24-32
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 48-4 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 48-4
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 6-20 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 6-20
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 14-14 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 14-14
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 16-30 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 16-30
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 60, lines 44-46 — Transcript, file page 60, lines 44-46
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 4-8 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 4-8
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 26-28 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 26-28
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 32-44 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 32-44
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 10-12 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 10-12
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 16-18 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 16-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 50-1 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 50-1
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 3, lines 20-28 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 20-28
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 30, lines 38-10 — Transcript, file page 30, lines 38-10
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 55, lines 50-12 — Transcript, file page 55, lines 50-12
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 22-4 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 22-4
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 20-28 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 20-28
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 30, lines 38-10 — Transcript, file page 30, lines 38-10
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 55, lines 50-12 — Transcript, file page 55, lines 50-12
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 22-4 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 22-4
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.