Skip to main content

Federal courts and securities lawsuits

Merrill Lynch v. Manning

Updated Oct 18, 2026

In brief

The Court kept the shareholders’ suit in state court under the same federal-law test used for other federal-question cases, without deciding liability.

Where it stands
Decided

Decided 8-0 · May 16, 2016 · Opinion by Justice Kagan

What it’s about
Escala Group shareholders sued Merrill Lynch and other financial firms in state court over alleged short selling of Escala stock; the firms argued that the Securities Exchange Act required the case to be heard in federal court.
Who it affects
The shareholders’ claims remain in state court; the Court did not decide whether Merrill Lynch or the other firms are liable.

Summary: written with AI from the case record.

Illustration for Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. v. Greg Manning
Conceptual illustration · AI-generated

What it's about

The Supreme Court agreed with the appeals court (affirmed) that the Act uses the same test as the general federal-question law to decide whether a claim depends on federal law, leaving the suit in state court without deciding the firms’ liability.

The dispute concerned where state-law claims tied to alleged violations of federal securities law may be heard.

Question presented

Does the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 provide for federal jurisdiction over state law claims seeking to establish liability based on violations of the federal Act?

What the Court decided

Holding

The jurisdictional test established by §27 is the same as §1331’s test for deciding if a case “arises under” a federal law. 772 F. 3d 158, affirmed.

Result
Affirmed

The Court's reasoning

The Court said the Securities Exchange Act uses the same test as general federal-question law: whether a case depends on federal law. It agreed with the Third Circuit’s result under that test.

The vote

  • Joined the judgment
  • Concurred in a separate opinion
  • Wrote an opinion
Majority · 7joined the Court's opinion
  1. Breyer
  2. Kaganwrote the opinion
  3. Kennedy
  4. Ginsburg
  5. Sotomayor
  6. Roberts
  7. Alito
Concurring · 1agreed with the result, wrote separately
  1. Thomas
8 justices joined the judgment (1 writing separately).

What's next

The unresolved claims remain in state court. The Supreme Court did not decide whether the firms are liable.

Documents

1

Docket activity

9
  • New analysis added

    Oct 18, 2026 · Court records

  • AI analysis generated: Case Briefing

    Oct 18, 2026 · Generated

  • New analysis added

    Oct 18, 2026 · Court records

  • AI analysis generated: Impact Analysis

    Oct 18, 2026 · Generated

  • AI analysis generated: Opinion Summary

    Oct 18, 2026 · Generated

Show 4 more
  • AI analysis generated: Decision Record

    Oct 18, 2026 · Generated

  • Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata

    Oct 18, 2026 · Court records

  • Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata

    Oct 17, 2026 · Court records

  • Opinion added: Manning

    May 16, 2016 · Court records

Sources

Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.

Checked Oct 18, 2026Methodology

Court records and filings

Reporting and analysis