October Term 2015 · Docket 15-339
Must prisoners exhaust administrative remedies before suing?
Prisoners argue the Fourth Circuit wrongly created an exception to the Prison Litigation Reform Act. The government argues the lower court correctly applied the law.
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
Ms. Bernhardt argued the Fourth Circuit adopted a nontextual exception to the Prison Litigation Reform Act. She claimed this exception eviscerates Congress's intent to require exhaustion of administrative remedies.
Mr. Hughes argued the proper outcome is to dismiss the case as improvidently granted. He alternatively argued the Court should affirm the lower court decision.
Mr. Tripp asked the Court to vacate and remand the case. He requested the lower court address case-specific arguments that emerged during briefing.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 38-44 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 38-44
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 21, lines 44-46 — Transcript, file page 21, lines 44-46
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 18-18 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 18-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 20-46 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 20-46
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 48-1 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 48-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 8-16 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 8-16
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 30, lines 20-36 — Transcript, file page 30, lines 20-36
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 16-30 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 16-30
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 48-50 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 48-50
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 28-34 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 28-34
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 46-1 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 46-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 6-12 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 6-12
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 14-26 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 14-26
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 38-12 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 38-12
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 52-12 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 52-12
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 22-40 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 22-40
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 42-10 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 42-10
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
The case concerns whether prisoners must finish internal prison appeals before filing federal lawsuits. The Fourth Circuit allowed a prisoner to sue without completing this process. The government says this violates federal law.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 21, lines 44-46 — Transcript, file page 21, lines 44-46
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 18-18 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 18-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 20-46 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 20-46
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 30, lines 20-36 — Transcript, file page 30, lines 20-36
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on March 29, 2016.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 8-16 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 8-16
What each side wants
the side that brought the case wants the Supreme Court to reverse the Fourth Circuit decision. the side that brought the case argues the lower court created an illegal exception to federal law.
the opposing side wants the Supreme Court to affirm the Fourth Circuit decision. the opposing side argues the lower court correctly applied the law.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 21, lines 44-46 — Transcript, file page 21, lines 44-46
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 18-18 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 18-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 20-46 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 20-46
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 30, lines 20-36 — Transcript, file page 30, lines 20-36
What each side says
the side that brought the case argues the Fourth Circuit adopted a nontextual exception to the Prison Litigation Reform Act. the side that brought the case claims this exception eviscerates Congress's intent to require exhaustion of administrative remedies.
the opposing side argues the proper outcome is to dismiss the case as improvidently granted. Alternatively, the opposing side argues the Court should affirm the lower court decision.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 21, lines 44-46 — Transcript, file page 21, lines 44-46
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 18-18 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 18-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 20-46 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 20-46
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 30, lines 20-36 — Transcript, file page 30, lines 20-36
What the justices asked
Justice Kagan asked if any case exists where the ARP adjudicated a complaint during an IIU investigation. Justice Kagan asked if prisoners must file with the ARP even when an IIU investigation is ongoing. Justice Kagan asked why cases suggest the ARP throws out cases when an IIU investigation exists.
Justice Sotomayor asked for an ARP case where the prisoner filed and the ARP made a determination. Justice Sotomayor asked if such a case exists in the record.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 38-44 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 38-44
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 48-1 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 48-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 16-30 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 16-30
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 48-50 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 48-50
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 28-34 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 28-34
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 46-1 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 46-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 6-12 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 6-12
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 14-26 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 14-26
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 38-12 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 38-12
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 52-12 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 52-12
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 22-40 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 22-40
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 42-10 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 42-10
Why it matters
This case determines whether prisoners must complete internal prison appeals before suing in federal court. The outcome affects the balance between prisoner rights and prison administration. It clarifies the scope of the Prison Litigation Reform Act.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 21, lines 44-46 — Transcript, file page 21, lines 44-46
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 18-18 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 18-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 20-46 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 20-46
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 30, lines 20-36 — Transcript, file page 30, lines 20-36
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 38-44 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 38-44
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 48-1 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 48-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 8-16 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 8-16
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 16-30 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 16-30
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 48-50 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 48-50
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 28-34 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 28-34
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 46-1 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 46-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 6-12 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 6-12
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 14-26 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 14-26
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 38-12 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 38-12
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 52-12 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 52-12
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 22-40 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 22-40
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 42-10 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 42-10
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 21, lines 44-46 — Transcript, file page 21, lines 44-46
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 18-18 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 18-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 20-46 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 20-46
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 30, lines 20-36 — Transcript, file page 30, lines 20-36
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 21, lines 44-46 — Transcript, file page 21, lines 44-46
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 18-18 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 18-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 20-46 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 20-46
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 30, lines 20-36 — Transcript, file page 30, lines 20-36
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.