Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/22-210_7mi8.pdf
Page Number: 5

Cite as:  598 U. S. ____ (2023) 

3 

Opinion of the Court 

§1997e(a).  The District Court denied the motion.  It noted 
factual disagreements between the parties about whether
Younger had adhered to Maryland’s Administrative Rem-
edy  Procedure  but  concluded  that  it  “need  not  resolve 
[those]  disputes.”  Younger  v.  Green,  Civ.  No.  16–3269  (D 
Md., Dec. 19, 2019), App. to Pet. for Cert. 42a.  Instead, the 
court observed that there was “no dispute” that the Mary-
land  prison  system  had  internally  investigated  Younger’s
assault. 
  And  it  held  that  this  inquiry  satisfied
Younger’s exhaustion obligation.

Ibid.

The case then proceeded to a jury trial.  Dupree did not 
present any evidence relating to his exhaustion defense, nor
did  he  invoke  exhaustion  in  his  Rule  50(a)  motion,  which 
the District Court denied.  The jury found Dupree and four 
of his codefendants liable and awarded Younger $700,000
in damages.  Dupree did not file a post-trial motion under 
Rule 50(b).

Dupree appealed a single issue to the Fourth Circuit: the
District Court’s rejection of his exhaustion defense at sum-
mary judgment.  Unfortunately for Dupree, the appeal was
over before it began.  Fourth Circuit precedent maintains
that  a  claim  or  defense  rejected  at  summary  judgment  is 
not preserved for appellate review unless it was renewed in 
a post-trial motion—even when the issue is a purely legal 
one.  Varghese v. Honeywell Int’l, Inc., 424 F. 3d 411, 422– 
423 (2005).  Bound by this precedent, the panel dismissed 
the appeal.

The Fourth Circuit’s decision further cemented a conflict 
among the Courts of Appeals over whether a  purely legal 
challenge resolved at summary judgment must be renewed 
in a post-trial motion in order to preserve that challenge for 
appellate review.  We granted certiorari to resolve the dis-
agreement.2  598 U. S. ___ (2023). 

—————— 

2 Compare Rothstein v. Carriere, 373 F. 3d 275, 284 (CA2 2004) (post-
trial motion not required to preserve claims of purely legal error); Frank