Whether a district court’s decision to quash or enforce an EEOC subpoena should be reviewed de novo, which only the Ninth Circuit does, or should be reviewed deferentially, which eight other circuits do, consistent with this Court’s precedents concerning the choice of standards of review.
Decided April 3, 2017
A district court’s decision whether to enforce or quash an EEOC subpoena should be reviewed for abuse of discretion, not de novo.
Chief Justice Roberts
SOTOMAYOR, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and KENNEDY, THOMAS, BREYER, ALITO, and KAGAN, JJ., joined. GINSBURG, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part.
Text of Opinion
February 21, 2017
On Behalf of Petitioner
McLane Company, Inc.
Allyson N. Ho, Dallas, Tex.
On Behalf of Respondent
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Rachel P. Kovner, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C.
On Behalf of Court-appointed amicus curiae
Stephen B. Kinnaird, Washington, D. C.
Brief for Court-Apponted Amicus Curiae (pdf download)
Brief for Petitioner (pdf download)
Brief for Respondent (pdf download)
Reply Brief for Petitioner (pdf download)
Reply Brief for Respondent (pdf download)
Amicus Curiae Briefs
Brief for Law Professors in Support of Petitioner (pdf download)
Brief for the Equal Employment Advisory Council, Chamber Of Commerce of the United States of America And National Federation of Independent Business Small Business Legal Center in Support of Petitioner (pdf download)
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
October 27, 2015