October Term 2017 · Docket 16-460
Does the 30-day grace period apply to all dismissed supplemental claims?
The dispute centers on whether federal law grants a uniform 30-day window to refile dismissed claims in state court.
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
Mr. Unikowsky argued the statute specifies a 30-day tolling period after dismissal.
Ms. Alikhan argued dismissed claims are treated as never filed without a mechanism.
Justice Alito questioned whether the statute includes stop-the-clock state statutes.
Justice Sotomayor noted Congress rejected the ALI report's grace period language.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 37-11 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 37-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 27-33 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 27-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 47-7 — Transcript, file page 16, lines 47-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 18, lines 11-17 — Transcript, file page 18, lines 11-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 33-9 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 33-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 11-21 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 11-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-7 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 29-37 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 29-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 55-7 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 55-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 9-23 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 9-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 13-25 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 13-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 51-11 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 51-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 66, lines 45-43 — Transcript, file page 66, lines 45-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 67, lines 45-47 — Transcript, file page 67, lines 45-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 29-33 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 29-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 53-15 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 53-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 49-9 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 49-9
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
This case examines the scope of a federal statute governing supplemental jurisdiction. The core issue is the definition of tolling under Title 28 Section 1367(d). the side that brought the case argues the statute creates a mandatory 30-day grace period. the opposing side contends the statute only incorporates existing state tolling laws. The Court must interpret the statutory text and its legislative history.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 33-9 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 33-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-7 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 66, lines 45-43 — Transcript, file page 66, lines 45-43
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on November 1, 2017.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 11-21 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 11-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 67, lines 45-47 — Transcript, file page 67, lines 45-47
What each side wants
the side that brought the case wants a uniform 30-day federal grace period to refile claims.
the opposing side wants state tolling laws to control the refiling deadline.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 33-9 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 33-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-7 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 66, lines 45-43 — Transcript, file page 66, lines 45-43
What each side says
the side that brought the case argues the statute mandates a 30-day period after dismissal.
the opposing side argues the statute only incorporates state-specific tolling rules.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 33-9 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 33-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-7 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 66, lines 45-43 — Transcript, file page 66, lines 45-43
What the justices asked
Justice Alito asked if tolling and tolling mean the same thing.
Justice Kennedy questioned if the state law provision is unnecessary under the side that brought the case's view.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 37-11 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 37-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 27-33 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 27-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 47-7 — Transcript, file page 16, lines 47-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 18, lines 11-17 — Transcript, file page 18, lines 11-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 29-37 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 29-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 55-7 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 55-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 9-23 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 9-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 13-25 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 13-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 51-11 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 51-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 67, lines 45-47 — Transcript, file page 67, lines 45-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 29-33 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 29-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 53-15 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 53-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 49-9 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 49-9
Why it matters
Litigants face uncertainty about deadlines to refile dismissed claims in state court. A uniform federal deadline provides consistent protection for federal litigants. State-specific rules create varying deadlines across jurisdictions. The interpretation determines the practical time available to pursue legal remedies. This affects access to state courts for dismissed federal claims.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 33-9 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 33-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-7 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 66, lines 45-43 — Transcript, file page 66, lines 45-43
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 37-11 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 37-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 27-33 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 27-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 47-7 — Transcript, file page 16, lines 47-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 18, lines 11-17 — Transcript, file page 18, lines 11-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 11-21 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 11-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 29-37 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 29-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 55-7 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 55-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 9-23 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 9-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 13-25 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 13-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 51-11 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 51-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 67, lines 45-47 — Transcript, file page 67, lines 45-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 29-33 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 29-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 53-15 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 53-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 49-9 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 49-9
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 27, lines 33-9 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 33-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-7 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 66, lines 45-43 — Transcript, file page 66, lines 45-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 33-9 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 33-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-7 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 66, lines 45-43 — Transcript, file page 66, lines 45-43
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.