Discover this podcast and so much more

Podcasts are free to enjoy without a subscription. We also offer ebooks, audiobooks, and so much more for just $11.99/month.

[22O145] Delaware v. Pennsylvania and Wisconsin

[22O145] Delaware v. Pennsylvania and Wisconsin

FromSupreme Court Oral Arguments


[22O145] Delaware v. Pennsylvania and Wisconsin

FromSupreme Court Oral Arguments

ratings:
Length:
69 minutes
Released:
Oct 3, 2022
Format:
Podcast episode

Description

Delaware v. Pennsylvania and Wisconsin
Justia (with opinion) · Docket · oyez.org
Argued on Oct 3, 2022.Decided on Feb 28, 2023.
Petitioner: State of Delaware.Respondent: Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and State of Wisconsin.
Advocates: Neal Kumar Katyal (for Delaware)
Nicholas J. Bronni (for Arkansas et al.)
Facts of the case (from oyez.org)
MoneyGram Payments Systems, which is headquartered in Delaware, returns unclaimed checks to that state. Pennsylvania and Wisconsin argue that the checks are “money orders” or “similar written instruments,” which federal law requires to go to the states where they were purchased.
Invoking the U.S. Supreme Court’s jurisdiction over interstate disputes, Delaware filed the case directly in the Supreme Court. The Court appointed a special master, who concluded that MoneyGram’s checks are “money orders” or “similar written instruments” and thus should go to the states where they were purchased. Delaware asked the Court to review the Special Master’s findings for error.

Question
Are unclaimed MoneyGram checks “money orders” or “similar written instruments” and thus subject to a federal law that remits them to the states where they were purchased?

Conclusion
Unclaimed MoneyGram checks are “money orders” or “similar written instruments” and thus subject to the Federal Disposition Act, which remits them to the states where they were purchased. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson authored the opinion of the Court, which was unanimous as to its conclusion (but only 5-4 as to the discussion of legislative history supporting that conclusion).
The unclaimed checks at issue in this case are sufficiently similar to “money orders” to fall within the Federal Disposition Act (FDA) for two main reasons. First, they are similar in function in operation because they are prepaid financial instruments used to transmit a specified amount of money to a named payee. Second, because of the recordkeeping practices of the entity issuing and holding on to the prepaid funds, it would be inequitable for unclaimed checks to go to the state where the creditor is incorporated, as common law would require. For these reasons, the FDA, not the common law, applies to unclaimed MoneyGram checks.
Released:
Oct 3, 2022
Format:
Podcast episode

Titles in the series (100)

A podcast feed of the audio recordings of the oral arguments at the U.S. Supreme Court. * Podcast adds new arguments automatically and immediately after they become available on supremecourt.gov * Detailed episode descriptions with facts about the case from oyez.org and links to docket and other information. * Convenient chapters to skip to any exchange between a justice and an advocate (available as soon as oyez.org publishes the transcript). Also available in video form at https://www.youtube.com/@SCOTUSOralArgument