October Term 2025 · Docket 24-808
Does a time limit apply to vacating a void judgment?
Coney Island Auto Parts seeks to vacate a default judgment. Burton argues a time limit bars the request.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — 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.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Coney Island Auto Parts argues that void judgments are nullities. The company claims they lack legal effect. The company asserts they are odious to due process.
Burton argues that the rule text imposes a time limit. the opposing side claims the phrase reasonable time is not any time. the opposing side asserts the motion must be filed promptly.
Justice Jackson asked how a court decides if a judgment is void. The justice noted that someone must decide the merits claim. The justice questioned the threshold for filing the motion.
Justice Alito referenced a prior case involving void judgments. The justice noted that void judgments never exist. The justice asked about the logic of that concept.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 50-24 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 50-24
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 50-12 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 50-12
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 42-10 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 42-10
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 24-28 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 24-28
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 42-46 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 42-46
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 22, lines 46-10 — Transcript, file page 22, lines 46-10
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 12-24 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 12-24
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 26-36 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 26-36
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 38-42 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 38-42
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 52-56 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 52-56
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 28-32 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 28-32
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 44-54 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 44-54
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 22-48 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 22-48
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 20-28 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 20-28
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 42-38 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 42-38
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
The case tests whether a time limit applies to vacating a void judgment. Coney Island Auto Parts argues the judgment is a nullity. Burton argues a reasonable time limit applies to the motion.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 22, lines 46-10 — Transcript, file page 22, lines 46-10
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 26-36 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 26-36
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on November 4, 2025.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 12-24 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 12-24
What each side wants
Coney Island Auto Parts wants the Court to hold that no time limit applies to vacating a void judgment.
Burton wants the Court to hold that a reasonable time limit applies to the motion.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 22, lines 46-10 — Transcript, file page 22, lines 46-10
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 26-36 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 26-36
What each side says
Coney Island Auto Parts argues that a void judgment lacks legal effect and cannot be time-barred.
Burton argues that the rule text requires filing the motion within a reasonable time.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 22, lines 46-10 — Transcript, file page 22, lines 46-10
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 26-36 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 26-36
What the justices asked
Justice Gorsuch asked if the alternative argument was before the Court.
Justice Alito asked if a court must entertain an appeal of a void judgment filed late.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 50-24 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 50-24
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 50-12 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 50-12
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 42-10 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 42-10
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 24-28 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 24-28
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 42-46 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 42-46
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 38-42 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 38-42
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 52-56 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 52-56
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 28-32 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 28-32
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 44-54 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 44-54
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 22-48 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 22-48
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 20-28 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 20-28
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 42-38 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 42-38
Why it matters
This case defines the deadline for challenging a void judgment. It determines whether parties can seek relief indefinitely. It affects the finality of court orders. It shapes the balance between due process and procedural stability.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 22, lines 46-10 — Transcript, file page 22, lines 46-10
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 26-36 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 26-36
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 50-24 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 50-24
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 50-12 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 50-12
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 42-10 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 42-10
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 24-28 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 24-28
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 42-46 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 42-46
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 12-24 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 12-24
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 38-42 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 38-42
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 52-56 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 52-56
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 28-32 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 28-32
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 44-54 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 44-54
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 22-48 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 22-48
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 20-28 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 20-28
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 42-38 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 42-38
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Verified official opinions and orders
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 22, lines 46-10 — Transcript, file page 22, lines 46-10
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 26-36 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 26-36
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 22, lines 46-10 — Transcript, file page 22, lines 46-10
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 26-36 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 26-36
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Post Opinion ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Post Opinion ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.