October Term 2015 · Docket 14-510
Does erroneous legal advice toll the statute of limitations for tribal claims?
The Menominee Tribe seeks equitable tolling based on bad legal advice. The government opposes this exception.
Verified source milestones
- — 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
Mr. Strommer argued the legal question is straightforward.
Ms. Eisenstein stated the tribe believed it would not win.
Justice Sotomayor noted prior courts required exhaustion.
Justice Ginsburg pointed out the class action ended.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 18-22 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 18-22
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 28-44 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 28-44
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 6-8 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 6-8
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 20, lines 10-1 — Transcript, file page 20, lines 10-1
- 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 4, lines 30-32 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 30-32
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 14-36 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 14-36
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 20-30 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 20-30
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 24-32 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 24-32
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 48-10 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 48-10
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 42-46 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 42-46
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 16-20 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 16-20
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 40-50 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 40-50
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 6-10 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 6-10
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
The Menominee Tribe of Wisconsin sued the United States. The tribe claims it missed the filing deadline. It relied on legal advice that it did not need to exhaust administrative remedies. The government argues the deadline is strict. The tribe argues the advice was reasonable. The lower court rejected the tribe's claim.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 20, lines 10-1 — Transcript, file page 20, lines 10-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 20-28 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 20-28
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
What each side wants
The tribe wants the Court to allow equitable tolling for erroneous legal advice.
The government wants the Court to enforce the strict filing deadline.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 20, lines 10-1 — Transcript, file page 20, lines 10-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 20-28 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 20-28
What each side says
The tribe argues reasonable legal advice justifies tolling the deadline.
The government argues legal advice never justifies equitable tolling.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 20, lines 10-1 — Transcript, file page 20, lines 10-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 20-28 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 20-28
What the justices asked
Justice Alito asked about the time between certification denial and presentment.
Justice Scalia questioned if any case supports tolling for legal advice.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 18-22 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 18-22
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 28-44 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 28-44
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 6-8 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 6-8
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 30-32 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 30-32
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 14-36 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 14-36
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 20-30 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 20-30
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 24-32 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 24-32
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 48-10 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 48-10
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 42-46 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 42-46
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 16-20 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 16-20
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 40-50 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 40-50
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 6-10 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 6-10
Why it matters
This case defines when courts excuse missed deadlines. It affects how parties rely on legal counsel. It shapes the scope of equitable tolling doctrines. It impacts access to federal courts for tribal nations. It clarifies the role of administrative exhaustion requirements.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 20, lines 10-1 — Transcript, file page 20, lines 10-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 20-28 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 20-28
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 18-22 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 18-22
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 28-44 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 28-44
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 6-8 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 6-8
- 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 30-32 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 30-32
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 14-36 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 14-36
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 20-30 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 20-30
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 24-32 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 24-32
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 48-10 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 48-10
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 42-46 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 42-46
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 16-20 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 16-20
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 40-50 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 40-50
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 6-10 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 6-10
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 20, lines 10-1 — Transcript, file page 20, lines 10-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 20-28 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 20-28
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 20, lines 10-1 — Transcript, file page 20, lines 10-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 20-28 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 20-28
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.