October Term 2018 · Docket 17-1471
Can a defendant remove a counterclaim to federal court?
Home Depot seeks to move a state counterclaim to federal court. Jackson opposes this transfer.
Verified source milestones
- — 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. Barnette argued Home Depot is a defendant. He stated Home Depot did not sue anyone. He denied Home Depot is a counterclaim defendant.
Justice Sotomayor questioned the claim-by-claim analysis. She noted the statute speaks of removing an action. She asked if the theory fails without that analysis.
Justice Sotomayor asked why Home Depot does not need Jackson's approval. She noted Jackson opposes the removal. She questioned the right of an involuntary plaintiff to remove.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 33-41 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 33-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 45-53 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 45-53
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 29-47 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 29-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 55-19 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 55-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 43-45 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 43-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 34, lines 31-17 — Transcript, file page 34, lines 31-17
- 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 23-27 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 29-45 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 29-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 33-39 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 33-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 33-35 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 33-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 41-49 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 41-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 55-55 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 55-55
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 25-29 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 25-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 29-45 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 29-45
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
The case tests whether a defendant can remove a counterclaim. Home Depot argues it is a defendant. Jackson argues the statute requires all defendants to agree.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 34, lines 31-17 — Transcript, file page 34, lines 31-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-27 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-27
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on January 15, 2019.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 11-21 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 11-21
What each side wants
Home Depot wants to move the counterclaim to federal court.
Jackson wants the case to stay in state court.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 34, lines 31-17 — Transcript, file page 34, lines 31-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-27 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-27
What each side says
Home Depot argues it is a defendant under the removal statute.
Jackson argues the statute requires all defendants to consent to removal.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 34, lines 31-17 — Transcript, file page 34, lines 31-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-27 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-27
What the justices asked
Justice Sotomayor asked if all defendants must agree to removal.
Justice Gorsuch asked why the original defendant is not a defendant for removal purposes.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 33-41 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 33-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 45-53 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 45-53
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 29-47 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 29-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 55-19 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 55-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 43-45 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 43-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 29-45 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 29-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 33-39 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 33-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 33-35 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 33-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 41-49 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 41-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 55-55 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 55-55
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 25-29 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 25-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 29-45 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 29-45
Why it matters
This dispute defines who controls federal court access. It affects how parties choose their forum. It shapes the balance between state and federal litigation.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 34, lines 31-17 — Transcript, file page 34, lines 31-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-27 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-27
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 33-41 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 33-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 45-53 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 45-53
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 29-47 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 29-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 55-19 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 55-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 43-45 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 43-45
- 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 29-45 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 29-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 33-39 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 33-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 33-35 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 33-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 41-49 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 41-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 55-55 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 55-55
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 25-29 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 25-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 29-45 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 29-45
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 34, lines 31-17 — Transcript, file page 34, lines 31-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-27 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 34, lines 31-17 — Transcript, file page 34, lines 31-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-27 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-27
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.