Docket 23-1259
Blom Bank Sal v. Honickman
DecidedJun 5, 2025
8-1decision
Source: CourtListener.
Court rules plaintiffs must show "extraordinary circumstances" to reopen a dismissed case and amend their complaint
Impact3/10
What it does
The Court held that Rule 60(b)(6)'s "extraordinary circumstances" requirement applies in full whenever a party seeks to reopen a closed case, regardless of whether the party's goal is to file an amended complaint. Courts must first decide whether extraordinary circumstances justify reopening under Rule 60(b)(6) before they can even consider Rule 15(a)'s more permissive standard for allowing amended pleadings. The Second Circuit's approach of "balancing" the two rules together was rejected as improperly weakening the finality of court judgments.
Who benefits
Defendants who have won a final dismissal of a lawsuit against them, including banks and other institutions sued under federal anti-terrorism statutes, whose victories are harder for plaintiffs to undo after the case is closed.
Who is affected
Plaintiffs whose lawsuits have been dismissed with a final judgment and who later want to reopen the case to file an improved complaint, particularly those who previously declined opportunities to amend their complaint before dismissal.
Practical impact
Plaintiffs whose cases have been dismissed with a final judgment now face a strict, two-step hurdle if they want to reopen the case and file an improved complaint: they must first demonstrate "extraordinary circumstances" under Rule 60(b)(6) before a court will even consider whether to allow an amended pleading. Courts in circuits that had previously used a balancing approach — weighing finality against the liberal amendment policy — must now apply Rule 60(b)(6)'s demanding standard alone at the reopening stage. Parties who deliberately declined earlier opportunities to amend their complaints will face an especially difficult path to reopening, as such choices weigh against a finding of extraordinary circumstances.
Majority — Thomas
Joined by: Roberts, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett
The majority held that Rule 60(b)(6) — a "catchall" provision allowing courts to reopen final judgments for "any other reason that justifies relief" — is available only in narrow circumstances, and courts have consistently required "extraordinary circumstances" to grant such relief. The Court reasoned that Rule 60(b)(6) and Rule 15(a) operate at completely different stages of a lawsuit: Rule 15(a)'s permissive amendment policy applies before a case is closed, while Rule 60(b)(6) governs after a final judgment has been entered, and the two cannot be blended into a single balancing test. Allowing Rule 15(a)'s more relaxed standard to soften Rule 60(b)(6)'s strict requirement would undermine the finality of court judgments — a core principle the Court said is essential to the justice system. The majority also distinguished an earlier ruling in Foman v. Davis, which had applied a more lenient standard, because that case involved Rule 59(e), a different rule that does not threaten finality in the same way Rule 60(b)(6) does. Applying the correct standard, the Court found the district court had not abused its discretion in denying reopening, because a clarification of the legal standard by an appeals court rarely qualifies as an extraordinary circumstance, and the plaintiffs had repeatedly and deliberately chosen not to amend their complaint when they had the chance.
Dissent reasoning
Justice Jackson concurred in the outcome but wrote separately to push back on one part of the district court's reasoning that the majority endorsed. She agreed that Rule 60(b)(6)'s "extraordinary circumstances" standard applies and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying reopening — primarily because the appeals court's clarification of the legal standard was not itself an extraordinary circumstance. However, she argued that the district court was wrong to treat the plaintiffs' earlier decision not to amend their complaint as a mark against them, and the majority was wrong to call that reasoning "persuasive." In her view, choosing to appeal a dismissal rather than amend a complaint is not the same as abandoning litigation — it is exercising a statutory right to appellate review. She reasoned that automatically penalizing plaintiffs for appealing instead of amending would discourage parties from seeking appellate review even when they reasonably believe their original pleading was sufficient, and could leave important legal questions unresolved. She concluded that a prior refusal to amend should not categorically bar Rule 60(b)(6) relief, especially when a clear change in the law otherwise supplies the extraordinary circumstances needed.
Constitutional question
Does the demanding "extraordinary circumstances" standard required to reopen a final judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) become less strict when the party seeking to reopen the case wants to file an amended complaint, requiring courts to balance Rule 60(b)(6)'s finality standard against Rule 15(a)'s more permissive amendment policy?
Precedent changed
The ruling narrows the Second Circuit's prior approach of balancing Rule 60(b)(6) finality principles against Rule 15(a)'s liberal amendment policy; it does not formally overrule a Supreme Court precedent but reaffirms and extends the line of cases from Klapprott v. United States (1949) and Ackermann v. United States (1950) requiring extraordinary circumstances for Rule 60(b)(6) relief.