October Term 2016 · Docket 16-254

Does the Hague Service Convention allow mail service if the destination state does not object?

The parties dispute whether Article 10(a) permits serving legal papers by mail when the receiving country has not filed an objection.

Official caption
Water Splash, Inc. v. Menon
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

    the side that brought the case asserts Article 10(a) allows postal service if the forum state authorizes it.

    the side that brought the case claims the receiving state must not have objected to the provision.

    the opposing side contends the treaty text is unambiguous and restricts this service method.

    Justice Alito noted treaties are also United States law requiring standard interpretation rules.

    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

This case tests the scope of the Hague Service Convention. It asks if domestic law controls mail service when the treaty is silent on objections.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on March 22, 2017.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

the side that brought the case wants the Court to allow mail service under the treaty.

the opposing side wants the Court to bar mail service in this instance.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

the side that brought the case argues the treaty text permits mail service if the destination state does not object.

the opposing side argues the treaty text is unambiguous and does not authorize this specific service method.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Sotomayor asked where a person may raise a defense regarding lack of notice.

Justice Sotomayor asked why drafters used two different phrases in the treaty text.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This dispute determines how courts serve legal documents abroad. It affects the speed and cost of international litigation. It clarifies the balance between treaty text and domestic law.

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