Can Congress dismiss a specific pending lawsuit by statute?

Verified source milestones

1. 2026-08-29 — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
2. 2026-08-29 — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

This case tests the limits of congressional power over federal courts. The dispute centers on whether a statute can dismiss a specific, pending lawsuit. the sides that brought the case argue this violates separation of powers. the opposing sides argue Congress controls federal court jurisdiction.

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on November 7, 2017.

What each side wants

the sides that brought the case want the Court to strike down Section 2(b). They argue it unconstitutionally targets their specific lawsuit.

the opposing sides want the Court to uphold Section 2(b). They argue Congress validly stripped federal court jurisdiction.

What each side says

the sides that brought the case argue Section 2(b) violates separation of powers. They claim Congress cannot direct courts to dismiss a pending case.

the opposing sides argue Congress controls federal court jurisdiction. They claim the statute validly changed the law governing that jurisdiction.

What the justices asked

Justice Kennedy asked if the result would change without Section 2(b).

Justice Kagan asked if removing five specific words would change the outcome. She also questioned the distinction between jurisdiction and substantive law. She asked if the statute merely stripped jurisdiction. Justice Alito asked for a clear separation-of-powers rule for such statutes.

Why it matters

This case defines the boundary between legislative and judicial power. It determines whether Congress can target specific lawsuits for dismissal. The outcome shapes the independence of federal courts. It affects the stability of property rights and tribal operations. It clarifies the scope of congressional jurisdiction-stripping authority.

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

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 35, lines 37-31 — Transcript, file page 35, lines 37-31
• Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-11 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-11
• Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 58, lines 43-13 — Transcript, file page 58, lines 43-13
• Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 69, lines 35-13 — Transcript, file page 69, lines 35-13
• Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 72, lines 43-27 — Transcript, file page 72, lines 43-27
• Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 35, lines 37-31 — Transcript, file page 35, lines 37-31
• Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-11 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-11
• Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 58, lines 43-13 — Transcript, file page 58, lines 43-13
• Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 69, lines 35-13 — Transcript, file page 69, lines 35-13
• Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 72, lines 43-27 — Transcript, file page 72, lines 43-27

Revision history

1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript · 2026-08-30 18:29:17.312273+00:00

   Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript · 2026-09-05 03:22:24+00:00

   Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.