October Term 2024 · Docket 23-1259

Does a party's own strategic choice count as an extraordinary circumstance to reopen a final judgment?

The dispute centers on whether a litigant's own strategic decisions can satisfy the high bar for reopening a final judgment under Rule 60(b)(6).

Official caption
BLOM Bank SAL v. Honickman
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Decided
Sources analyzed through
Post Opinion

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  2. — An official Court opinion 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 contends that the Second Circuit diluted the stringent standard for reopening judgments.

    the opposing side asserts that the plaintiffs did everything expected of litigants and did not waste court time.

    Justice Jackson expressed concern about punishing parties for exercising their right to appeal if the side that brought the case's rule is accepted.

    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 Rule 60(b)(6). The rule allows courts to reopen final judgments only for extraordinary circumstances. The core conflict is whether a party's own strategic choices qualify as such circumstances. the side that brought the case argues the Second Circuit diluted this standard. the opposing side claims the circumstances here clearly meet the rule's requirements.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on March 3, 2025.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

the side that brought the case wants the Court to hold that a party's own strategic choices cannot satisfy the extraordinary circumstances requirement for reopening a final judgment.

the opposing side wants the Court to hold that the specific circumstances of this case clearly meet the standard for reopening a final judgment under Rule 60(b)(6).

Official sources for this section

What each side says

the side that brought the case argues that Rule 60(b)(6) requires extraordinary circumstances that cannot result from the movant's own strategic choices.

the opposing side argues that the plaintiffs acted appropriately and that the circumstances of this case clearly meet the standard for reopening the judgment.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Thomas asked if the opposing side's argument relies on the view that the Second Circuit announced a new rule.

Justice Sotomayor asked if the facts here were not extraordinary circumstances and noted the lower court did not address whether Rule 60(b) was met.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This case defines the boundary for reopening final judgments. It determines whether strategic litigation choices can serve as grounds for relief. The outcome shapes the finality of judicial decisions and the standards for correcting past errors.

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

Verified official opinions and orders

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Post Opinion ·

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

  2. Revision 2 · Post Opinion ·

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

Download this sanitized case as JSON