October Term 2018 · Docket 17-1307

Does a law firm enforcing a security interest act as a debt collector?

The dispute centers on whether enforcing a security interest constitutes debt collection under federal law.

Official caption
Obduskey v. McCarthy & Holthus LLP.
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.
  2. — 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

    Mr. Shanmugam argued that enforcing security interests is not debt collection.

    Mr. Geyser argued that non-judicial foreclosures are direct debt collection attempts.

    Mr. Bond argued that Congress limited debt collector status to one subsection.

    Mr. Geyser argued that the statute targets actions to enforce real property interests.

    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 Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. It asks if enforcing a security interest counts as debt collection.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on January 7, 2019.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

the side that brought the case wants the Court to hold that enforcing a security interest is not debt collection.

the opposing side wants the Court to hold that enforcing a security interest is debt collection.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

the side that brought the case argues that enforcing a security interest is distinct from collecting a debt.

the opposing side argues that pre-foreclosure notices function as traditional debt collection attempts.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Gorsuch asked how the statute handles the word threatening.

Justice Breyer asked who falls under part two but not part one.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This case defines the legal status of law firms enforcing security interests. It determines whether these firms face federal debt collection restrictions. The outcome shapes the regulatory landscape for non-judicial foreclosures.

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