October Term 2016 · Docket 15-1248

Who decides if the EEOC subpoena is too broad?

McLane seeks a strict legal standard to limit EEOC subpoenas. The agency argues courts must defer to its investigative choices.

Official caption
McLane Co. v. EEOC
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.

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

    Ms. Ho argued the statutory structure favors an abuse of discretion review.

    Mr. Kinnaird argued the agency holds sole discretion over evidence relevance.

    Justice Ginsburg noted subpoena enforcement comes to the court cold.

    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 dispute centers on the standard of review for EEOC subpoenas. McLane wants courts to strictly check agency demands. The EEOC wants courts to defer to its investigative judgment.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on February 21, 2017.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

McLane wants a strict legal standard to limit EEOC subpoenas.

The EEOC wants courts to defer to its investigative judgment.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

McLane argues historical and functional considerations support an abuse of discretion standard.

The EEOC argues Congress vested the agency, not the court, with relevance discretion.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Sotomayor asked if the only issue is the failure to order release.

Justice Breyer asked what stops the agency from demanding every document.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This case defines the balance between agency power and business privacy. It sets the standard for reviewing federal investigative subpoenas. The outcome shapes future civil rights enforcement efforts.

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