12345678910111213141516171819202122232425
Official - Subject to Final Review
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - xREED ELSEVIER, INC., ET AL. :Petitioners :v. : No. 08-103IRVIN MUCHNICK, ET AL. :- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - xWashington, D.C.Wednesday, October 7, 2009The above-entitled matter came on for oralargument before the Supreme Court of the United Statesat 11:07 a.m.APPEARANCES:CHARLES S. SIMS, ESQ., New York, N.Y.; on behalf ofthe Petitioners.GINGER ANDERS, ESQ., Assistant to the Solicitor General,Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.; on behalf ofthe United States, as amicus curiae, supporting thePetitioners.DEBORAH JONES MERRITT, ESQ., Columbus, Ohio; as amicuscuriae in support of the judgement below. Appointedby this Court.1
Alderson Reporting Company
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425
Official - Subject to Final Review
C O N T E N T SORAL ARGUMENT OF PAGECHARLES S. SIMS, ESQ.On behalf of the Petitioners 3GINGER ANDERS, ESQ.On behalf of the United States, as amicuscuriae, supporting the Petitioners 19DEBORAH JONES MERRITT, ESQ.As amicus curiae in support of the judgementbelow 29REBUTTAL ARGUMENT OFCHARLES S. SIMS, ESQ.On behalf of the Petitioners 542
Alderson Reporting Company
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425
Official - Subject to Final Review
P R O C E E D I N G S(11:07 a.m.)CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: We will hearargument next in Case 08-103, Elsevier v. Muchnick.Mr. Sims.ORAL ARGUMENT OF CHARLES S. SIMSON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERSMR. SIMS: Mr. Chief Justice, and may itplease the Court:The Second Circuit's decision vacating forlack of jurisdiction a settlement agreement thatcompensated authors for all their arguably infringedworks in the face of Congress's direction that Federaldistrict courts shall have jurisdiction over any civilaction arising under copyright is wrong for threereasons. First, even -- first, the decision isincorrect under the unanimous holding three years ago inArbaugh that where Congress affords unqualified subjectmatter jurisdiction, other statutory provisions arguedto be jurisdictional that do not clearly restrict thatjurisdiction won't be deemed to do so.CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: This is a lot hardercase than Arbaugh, though. Arbaugh involved thedefinition of an employer and then the scope of thestatute. This one says no suit shall be instituted.3
Alderson Reporting Company
Search History:
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
p.
Reed Elsevier Supreme Court Oral Argument Transcript
Oral argument transcript in the Reed Elsevier case before the US Supreme Court
1.7K
Reads
3
Readcasts
1
Embed Views
More From This User
Notes
Load more
