Waetzig v. Halliburton Energy Services

Opinion of the Court

Samuel A. Alito Jr.

(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2024 1

 Syllabus

 NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is
 being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.
 The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been
 prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.
 See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337 .

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

 Syllabus

WAETZIG v. HALLIBURTON ENERGY SERVICES, INC.

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
 THE TENTH CIRCUIT

 No. 23–971. Argued January 14, 2025—Decided February 26, 2025

Gary Waetzig filed a federal age-discrimination lawsuit against his for-
 mer employer Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. He later submitted
 his claims for arbitration, and voluntarily dismissed his federal law-
 suit without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a). Af-
 ter losing at arbitration, he asked the District Court to reopen his dis-
 missed lawsuit and vacate the arbitration award, asserting Federal
 Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) as the basis for reopening the suit. Fed-
 eral Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) permits relief from a “final judgment,
 order, or proceeding.” The District Court reopened the case, finding
 that a voluntary dismissal without prejudice counts as a “final pro-
 ceeding” and that Waetzig made a mistake when he dismissed his case
 rather than seeking a stay. The District Court separately granted
 Waetzig’s motion to vacate the arbitration award. The Tenth Circuit
 reversed.
Held: A case voluntarily dismissed without prejudice under Rule 41(a)
 counts as a “final proceeding” under Rule 60(b). Pp. 4–14.
 (a) The Court does not address Halliburton’s argument regarding
 jurisdiction over the motion to vacate. The question whether Rule
 60(b) permits reopening a case that was voluntarily dismissed without
 prejudice is antecedent to jurisdictional questions about the motion to
 vacate. The lower courts may address those questions on remand. Pp.
 4–6.
 (b) Text, context, and history support the conclusion that a Rule
 41(a) voluntary dismissal without prejudice qualifies as a “final pro-
 ceeding” under Rule 60(b). Pp. 6–14.
 (1) A voluntary dismissal is “final” because it terminates the case.
2 WAETZIG v. HALLIBURTON ENERGY SERVICES, INC.

 Syllabus

 This straightforward reading aligns with legal dictionaries from 1946
 (when “final” first appeared in the Rule) and is confirmed by Advisory
 Committee Notes to the 1946 Amendment to the Rule. The word “fi-
 nal” underscores that Rule 60(b) does not infringe a court’s inherent
 and distinct power to revise its interlocutory decrees in an ongoing
 case.
 Halliburton’s request to construe “final” consistent with jurisdic-
 tional statutes like 28 U. S. C. §1291 , which gives the Courts of Ap-
 peals jurisdiction over appeals from “final decisions” of district courts,
 is unpersuasive. The finality concept in appellate jurisdiction serves a
 distinct purpose—preventing interlocutory appeals from impairing
 case resolution at the trial level. Finality under Rule 60(b) does not
 play a similar role. Unlike an appeal filed under the appellate juris-
 diction statute, a motion for relief under Rule 60(b) is discretionary,
 not a matter of statutory right. Rule 60(b) therefore does not pose the
 same risk to efficient case resolution before the trial courts. The Court
 sees no reason to import the understanding of finality that applies in
 the field of appellate jurisdiction to the different context of Rule 60(b).
 Pp. 6–9.
 (2) A voluntary dismissal counts as a “proceeding” under Rule
 60(b). Legal dictionaries from 1938 to present suggest that the term
 “proceeding” encompasses all steps in an action’s progression. Other
 federal rules similarly treat “proceeding” as including all formal steps
 in an action.
 Halliburton, and the court below, assert that the term “proceeding”
 should be read in the context of its neighboring terms “judgment” and
 “order.” And because a “judgment” and “order” both involve some ju-
 dicial determination of rights, a “proceeding” should at least involve
 some judicial action or conclusive determination of rights. Although it
 is true that statutory terms must be read in the context of their neigh-
 bors, that rule cuts the other way in this case. The proposed alterna-
 tive reading would strip “proceeding” of independent meaning, as any
 judicial determination would already be an “order.” When Rule 60(b)
 authorizes relief from a “judgment, order, or proceeding,” the Rule
 speaks in an ascending order of generality. The structure of the Rule
 suggests that each term should be read as broader than what came
 before. Pp. 10–12.
 (3) The Court’s reading is buttressed by historical context, as Rule
 60(b) was modeled after a California statute previously interpreted to
 extend to voluntary dismissals without prejudice. See Hall v. Hall, 584
 U. S. 59 , 72–73 (reading Rule 42(a) in light of “its statutory predeces-
 sor”). Pp. 12–13.
 82 F. 4th 918 , reversed and remanded.
 Cite as: 604 U. S. ____ (2025) 3

 Syllabus

ALITO, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.
 Cite as: 604 U. S. ____ (2025) 1

 Opinion of the Court

 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the
 United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of
 Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D. C. 20543,
 pio@supremecourt.gov, of any typographical or other formal errors.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
 _________________

 No. 23–971
 _________________

 GARY WAETZIG, PETITIONER v. HALLIBURTON
 ENERGY SERVICES, INC.
 ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
 APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
 [February 26, 2025]

 JUSTICE ALITO delivered the opinion of the Court.
 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) permits a court,
“[o]n motion and just terms,” to “relieve a party . . . from a
final judgment, order, or proceeding.” The question in this
case is whether Rule 60(b) permits a district court to reopen
a case that was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice un-
der Rule 41(a). We hold that such a dismissal counts as a
“final judgment, order, or proceeding,” and thus qualifies
for Rule 60(b) relief.
 I
 A
 This case began as an employment dispute. Petitioner
Gary Waetzig is a former employee of respondent Hallibur-
ton Energy Services, Inc. Following his termination,
Waetzig filed a lawsuit against Halliburton in the U. S. Dis-
trict Court for the District of Colorado. He alleged that he
was illegally terminated on the basis of his age, in violation
of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 81
Stat. 602 , as amended, 29 U. S. C. §621 et seq. In response,
Halliburton asserted that Waetzig was required to arbi-
trate his claim. Waetzig acquiesced and submitted his
2 WAETZIG v. HALLIBURTON ENERGY SERVICES, INC.

 Opinion of the Court

claims for arbitration.
 At that point, Waetzig could have asked the District
Court to stay his federal lawsuit pending the arbitration
proceedings. See 9 U. S. C. §3 ; Smith v. Spizzirri, 601 U. S.
472, 476 (2024). Instead, he elected to dismiss the case un-
der Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a). Under that Rule,
a plaintiff may dismiss his case “without a court order” if he
serves “a notice of dismissal before the opposing party
serves either an answer or a motion for summary judg-
ment.” Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Since Halliburton had not yet
served an answer or moved for summary judgment,
Waetzig’s dismissal was effective without any court action.
And given that this was the first time Waetzig had dis-
missed these claims, his dismissal was presumptively
“without prejudice.” Rule 41(a)(1)(B). That means that
Waetzig had preserved his right to refile the same claims in
the future. Semtek Int’l Inc. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 531
U. S. 497, 505 (2001).
 Waetzig lost at arbitration. After a telephonic hearing,
the arbitrator issued an award granting summary judg-
ment in favor of Halliburton. In Waetzig’s view, however,
the arbitrator failed to follow various procedural rules re-
quired by the parties’ arbitration agreement. To remedy
that alleged error, Waetzig turned back to federal court.
 B
 Waetzig’s next move was procedurally creative. Instead
of filing a new lawsuit in federal court attacking the validity
of the arbitration award, he returned to the lawsuit that he
had previously dismissed. He filed a motion under the old
docket number and asked the court to reopen that case and
vacate the arbitration award. That move created an obvi-
ous problem: As we already explained, Waetzig’s dismissal
under Rule 41(a) terminated his case. So, in theory, filing
a new motion in the case was impossible. The District
Court was therefore skeptical of Waetzig’s gambit. It issued
 Cite as: 604 U. S. ____ (2025) 3

 Opinion of the Court

an order asking him to show cause that would justify the
court’s taking jurisdiction over the motion. In response,
Waetzig asserted that the District Court could reopen the
case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b).
 Rule 60(b) permits a court, “[o]n motion and just terms,”
to “relieve a party . . . from a final judgment, order, or pro-
ceeding.” A court may do so for six enumerated “reasons,”
including “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable ne-
glect.” See Rule 60(b)(1). The general “purpose” of the Rule,
we have said, is “to make an exception to finality.” Gonzalez
v. Crosby, 545 U. S. 524, 529 (2005). The Rule “attempts to
strike a proper balance between the conflicting principles
that litigation must be brought to an end and that justice
should be done.” 11 C. Wright, A. Miller, & M. Kane, Fed-
eral Practice and Procedure §2851, p. 286 (3d ed. 2012).
 Here, the District Court agreed with Waetzig and
awarded Rule 60(b) relief. First, it held that a voluntary
dismissal without prejudice counts as a “final proceeding”
and therefore falls within the ambit of the Rule. App. to
Pet. for Cert. 55a–56a. Second, it found that Waetzig had
committed a “careless mistake” when he voluntarily dis-
missed his case instead of moving for a stay pending arbi-
tration or administratively closing the case. Id., at 59a. Ac-
cording to the District Court, Waetzig did so under the false
understanding that the court would retain jurisdiction over
the arbitration agreement. Ibid. The court thus found that
relief was proper under Rule 60(b)(1). Ibid. And after reo-
pening the case under that provision,1 the court issued a
separate order granting Waetzig’s motion to vacate the ar-
bitration award. Id., at 48a.
——————
 1 The District Court additionally found that relief was warranted un-

der Rule 60(b)(6), which permits relief for “any other reason that justifies
relief.” In the District Court’s view, an intervening precedent from our
Court affected Waetzig’s right to refile a new case, justifying relief under
Rule 60(b)(6). App. to Pet. for Cert. 59a–62a (citing Badgerow v. Walters,
 596 U. S. 1 (2022)).
4 WAETZIG v. HALLIBURTON ENERGY SERVICES, INC.

 Opinion of the Court

 Halliburton appealed. Among other things, it argued
that a voluntary dismissal without prejudice does not count
as a “final judgment, order, or proceeding,” and therefore
falls outside the reach of Rule 60(b). Brief for Appellant in
No. 22–1252 (CA10, Nov. 14, 2022), ECF Doc. 25, pp. 23–
26. The Tenth Circuit agreed. It reasoned that Waetzig’s
voluntary dismissal was not a final “judgment” or “order”
because the act of dismissal required neither the entry of a
judgment nor the issuance of an order by the court. 82
F. 4th 918 , 921 (2023). The Tenth Circuit then concluded
that a voluntary dismissal without prejudice could not be a
“final proceeding” because, in its view, “a final proceeding
must involve, at a minimum, a judicial determination with
finality.” Id., at 923 . In so holding, the Tenth Circuit split
from other Circuits that have considered the issue. See
Yesh Music v. Lakewood Church, 727 F. 3d 356 , 362–363
(CA5 2013) (“[W]e are satisfied that a Rule 41(a)(1)(A) vol-
untary dismissal without prejudice qualifies as a ‘final pro-
ceeding’ ”); accord, Nelson v. Napolitano, 657 F. 3d 586, 589
(CA7 2011).
 We granted certiorari to decide whether a Rule 41(a) dis-
missal without prejudice is a “final judgment, order, or pro-
ceeding” under Rule 60(b). 603 U. S. ___ (2024).
 II
 Before reaching that question, however, we first address
a preliminary issue related to jurisdiction. Halliburton
claims that the District Court lacked jurisdiction over
Waetzig’s motion to vacate the arbitration award. In sup-
port of its argument, Halliburton points to this Court’s de-
cisions in Badgerow v. Walters, 596 U. S. 1 (2022), and Kok-
konen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U. S. 375
(1994). We need not address the merits of this argument,
however, because it presents no barrier to our deciding the
question presented. We granted certiorari to decide
whether Rule 60(b) permits a court to reopen a case that
 Cite as: 604 U. S. ____ (2025) 5

 Opinion of the Court

was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice. That ques-
tion is separate from, and antecedent to, the question
whether the District Court could exercise jurisdiction over
Waetzig’s motion to vacate.
 The cases Halliburton cites prove the point. In
Badgerow, we addressed the jurisdiction of the federal
courts to consider motions to vacate arbitration awards
filed under a provision of the Federal Arbitration Act, 9
U. S. C. §10 (a). We held that a plaintiff seeking to vacate
an arbitration award must point to an “ ‘independent juris-
dictional basis’ ” that would authorize a federal court to de-
cide the matter. Badgerow, 596 U. S., at 8 (quoting Hall
Street Associates, L. L. C. v. Mattel, Inc., 552 U. S 576, 582
(2008)). In the other case, Kokkonen, we suggested that
Rule 60(b) cannot confer jurisdiction upon a federal court
where jurisdiction would not otherwise exist. 511 U. S., at
378 . We reasoned that reopening a case under Rule 60(b)
would not automatically confer jurisdiction over a subse-
quent motion to enforce a settlement agreement. Ibid. The
upshot of our analysis in Kokkonen was that, even though
Rule 60(b) might give a court the power to reopen a case,
the Rule cannot itself serve as the basis for federal jurisdic-
tion.
 Although these cases might bear on the District Court’s
jurisdiction over Waetzig’s motion to vacate, they say noth-
ing at all about whether the District Court had the power,
under Rule 60(b), to reopen Waetzig’s case in the first place.
That power is the focus of our decision today, and it must
be addressed before any subsequent jurisdictional ques-
tions is considered. The procedural history of this case con-
firms as much. Before the District Court could rule on
Waetzig’s motion to vacate, it first needed to reopen his
case. Consistent with that understanding, the court issued
two separate orders: first, an order reopening the case pur-
suant to Rule 60(b), see App. to Pet. for Cert. 64a, and sec-
ond, an order vacating the arbitration award, see id., at
6 WAETZIG v. HALLIBURTON ENERGY SERVICES, INC.

 Opinion of the Court

48a. We granted certiorari to address the District Court’s
power to issue the first order, not its jurisdiction to issue
the second. We leave it to the lower courts to address any
subsequent jurisdictional questions on remand.
 III
 That brings us to the question presented. Rule 60(b) per-
mits a court to “relieve a party . . . from a final judgment,
order, or proceeding.” We hold that a Rule 41(a) voluntary
dismissal without prejudice qualifies as a “final . . . proceed-
ing” under Rule 60(b). Text, context, and history support
that interpretation.
 A
 1
 To start, we hold that a voluntary dismissal without prej-
udice is “final” under Rule 60(b). In 1946, when the term
“final” first appeared in the Rule, legal dictionaries defined
“final” to mean “[d]efinitive; terminating; completed; con-
clusive; last.” Black’s Law Dictionary 779 (3d ed. 1933)
(Black’s); see Ballentine’s Law Dictionary 503 (1930) (“the
end, ultimate, or last”). By way of illustration, Black’s Law
Dictionary defined “final order” as an order that “termi-
nates the action itself.” Black’s 1298. A voluntary dismis-
sal without prejudice falls comfortably within this defini-
tion. The dismissal is the “conclusive” and “last” filing on
the docket, and it “complete[s]” the particular lawsuit at is-
sue. Id., at 779. And, like a “final order,” the dismissal
“terminates the action itself.” Id., at 1298.
 That straightforward reading of “final” is confirmed by
the Federal Rules Advisory Committee’s Notes, which are
“ ‘a reliable source of insight into the meaning of a rule.’ ”
Hall v. Hall, 584 U. S. 59, 75 (2018) (quoting United States
v. Vonn, 535 U. S. 55, 64, n. 6 (2002)). In the Notes accom-
panying the 1946 amendments to Rule 60(b), the Commit-
tee briefly explained its reason for adding the term “final.”
 Cite as: 604 U. S. ____ (2025) 7

 Opinion of the Court

According to the Committee, the addition of “final” clarified
that “interlocutory judgments are not brought within the
restrictions of the Rule, but rather they are left subject to
the complete power of the court rendering them to afford
such relief from them as justice requires.” Advisory Com-
mittee’s 1946 Note on subd. (b) of Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 60,
28 U. S. C. App., p. 289.
 The term “final” was therefore intended to exclude “inter-
locutory judgments” from the reach of the Rule. And, as the
Committee Notes explain, that exclusion makes sense.
Rule 60(b) relief from interlocutory judgments is unneces-
sary because, with respect to those judgments, “a rehearing
may be sought at any time before [the] final decree, pro-
vided due diligence be employed and a revision be otherwise
consonant with equity.” John Simmons Co. v. Grier Broth-
ers Co., 258 U. S. 82 , 90–91 (1922). In other words, a court
presiding over a case is always capable of revising an inter-
locutory ruling, so long as a revision is “consonant with eq-
uity.” Id., at 91 . The word “final” underscores that Rule
60(b) does not infringe that inherent and distinct power.
 After a case is finally terminated, however, a court no
longer presides, and a party can no longer seek a “rehear-
ing” on an interlocutory judgment. Ibid. It is at that point
that a court’s power under Rule 60(b) kicks in, permitting
the court to look back at the “final” act in a case and provide
relief from that act when appropriate. A voluntary dismis-
sal without prejudice is one such “final” act. It terminates
the case and strips a court of its equitable power to revise
its earlier rulings. At that point, Rule 60(b) is the appropri-
ate avenue for relief.
 A contrary interpretation would place voluntary dismis-
sals without prejudice into a procedural no man’s land.
Such dismissals would not be “interlocutory” in the manner
that the Committee Notes discuss because they are outside
of a court’s “complete power” over an ongoing case. Nor
8 WAETZIG v. HALLIBURTON ENERGY SERVICES, INC.

 Opinion of the Court

would they be “final” and thus subject to Rule 60(b). Halli-
burton provides no evidence supporting the existence of any
third category. If a voluntary dismissal without prejudice
is not “interlocutory,” then it is hard to imagine that it could
be anything but “final.”
 2
 Halliburton nevertheless presses for a narrower defini-
tion of “final.” Specifically, it asks the Court to construe
“final” in Rule 60(b) to mean essentially what it means in
jurisdictional statutes like 28 U. S. C. §1291 , which gives
the Courts of Appeals jurisdiction over appeals from “final
decisions” of district courts. This grant of appellate juris-
diction can be traced back to the first Judiciary Act. See
Judiciary Act of 1789, §22, 1 Stat. 84 . And long before the
adoption of Rule 60(b), this Court had developed a rich ju-
risprudence explaining the meaning of “final” as it relates
to appellate jurisdiction. See Bostwick v. Brinkerhoff, 106
U. S. 3 , 3–4 (1882) (citing cases). Halliburton asks us to
look to that “ ‘legal lineage’ ” when interpreting Rule 60(b).
Brief for Respondent 22 (quoting Hall, 584 U. S., at 66 ).
Based on that body of case law, Halliburton contends that
a determination is “final” principally when it “ ‘terminate[s]
the litigation between the parties on the merits of the case.’ ”
Brief for Respondent 23 (quoting Bostwick, 106 U. S., at 3 ;
alterations in original; emphasis added).
 Contrary to Halliburton’s suggestion, however, we do not
find this body of case law helpful in interpreting the mean-
ing of the term “final” in Rule 60(b). True, we sometimes
look to legal tradition when interpreting a statutory term,
but we typically do so only when the term is “ ‘obviously
transplanted from another legal source.’ ” Taggart v. Lo-
renzen, 587 U. S. 554, 560 (2019) (quoting Hall, 584 U. S.,
at 73 ). Here, there is little reason to think that the term
“final” in Rule 60(b) was transplanted from statutes govern-
ing the jurisdiction of federal appellate courts. In that field,
 Cite as: 604 U. S. ____ (2025) 9

 Opinion of the Court

the concept of finality plays a distinctive role: It prevents
interlocutory appeals from unduly impairing the resolution
of civil and criminal cases at the trial level. Under 28
U. S. C. §1291 and predecessor provisions, a party that
loses in the district court has a “statutory right” to take an
appeal from any “final decision.” Arizona v. Manypenny,
 451 U. S. 232, 245, n. 19 (1981). Our decisions defining
what the term “final” means in this context have imposed
an important practical limit on such appeals. We have de-
scribed the finality requirement as “the means for achiev-
ing a healthy legal system.” Cobbledick v. United States,
 309 U. S. 323, 326 (1940). Without it, too many trial court
rulings could be appealed, and “ ‘the orderly progress of a
cause’ ” would be halted while the appellate court consid-
ered all sorts of “ ‘question[s] which ha[ve] happened to
cross the path of such litigation.’ ” Ibid. (quoting Segurola
v. United States, 275 U. S. 106, 112 (1927)).
 Finality under Rule 60(b) does not play a similar role.
Unlike an appeal filed under the appellate jurisdiction stat-
ute, a motion for relief under Rule 60(b) is discretionary,
not “a matter of statutory right.” Manypenny, 451 U. S., at
245, n. 19 . Further, Rule 60(b) relief is unnecessary when
a case is ongoing because during that time, a court retains
jurisdiction to review and modify its decrees. See supra, at
7. Thus, there is no reason to fear that Rule 60(b) will be
abused to bring about a “ ‘halt in the orderly progress of a
cause.’ ” Cobbledick, 309 U. S., at 326 (quoting Segurola,
 275 U. S., at 112 ). And, even if such abuse were possible,
Rule 60(b) provides district courts with ample discretion to
prevent it. Given these stark contextual differences, it is
unlikely that “final” as it appears in Rule 60(b) was trans-
planted from the appellate jurisdiction statute.
 We therefore see no reason to import the understanding
of finality that applies in the field of appellate jurisdiction.
In the context of Rule 60(b), a voluntary dismissal without
prejudice is “final” because it terminates the case.
10 WAETZIG v. HALLIBURTON ENERGY SERVICES, INC.

 Opinion of the Court

 B
 Next, we hold that a voluntary dismissal without preju-
dice counts as a “proceeding” under Rule 60(b).2 In 1938,
when the term “proceeding” first appeared in the Rule,
Black’s Law Dictionary defined “proceeding” as: “[T]he form
and manner of conducting juridical business before a court
or judicial officer; regular and orderly progress in form of
law; including all possible steps in an action from its com-
mencement to the execution of judgment.” Black’s 1430.
Other dictionaries defined the term similarly. See Ballen-
tine’s Law Dictionary, at 1023 (“the form in which actions
are to be brought and defended, the manner of intervening
in suits [and] of conducting them . . . ” (internal quotation
marks omitted)); Webster’s New International Dictionary
1710 (1927) (“[a]ny step or act taken in conducting litiga-
tion”). These definitions suggest that the term “proceeding”
encompasses all steps in an action, including the filing of
papers that are noted on the docket. Even today, Black’s
Law Dictionary defines “proceeding” as “[t]he regular and
orderly progression of a lawsuit, including all acts and
events between the time of commencement and the entry of
judgment.” Black’s 1459 (12th ed. 2024) (emphasis added).
 Other Federal Rules similarly treat “proceeding” as in-
cluding all formal steps taken in an action. Take, for exam-
ple, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37. Under that Rule, a
court may stay “further proceedings” in a case until a dis-
covery order is obeyed. Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(iv). In that con-
text, a stay of “proceedings” likely refers to a stay of any
further action in the lawsuit, including further docket fil-
ings. If read otherwise, the stay would be an ineffective
sanction against a party’s disobedience. Similarly, Rule 41

——————
 2 Waetzig additionally contends that a voluntary dismissal without

prejudice counts as a “judgment.” See Brief for Petitioner 25–29. Be-
cause we hold that such dismissals qualify as proceedings, we need not
decide whether they qualify as judgments for the purposes of Rule 60(b).
 Cite as: 604 U. S. ____ (2025) 11

 Opinion of the Court

permits a court to “stay the proceedings” until a plaintiff
pays the costs of a previously dismissed action. Rule
41(d)(2). As with Rule 37, that would be a relatively tooth-
less sanction if “proceedings” did not encompass all further
actions in the case.
 Halliburton and the court below offer an alternative def-
inition. They argue that the term “proceeding” is “ ‘given
more precise content by the neighboring words with which
it is associated.’ ” Fischer v. United States, 603 U. S. 480,
487 (2024) (quoting United States v. Williams, 553 U. S.
285, 294 (2008)). Specifically, they assert that the term
“proceeding” should be read to include the characteristics of
the terms that come before it: “judgment” and “order.” See
Rule 60(b) (“judgment, order, or proceeding”). Since a
“judgment” and “order” both involve some judicial determi-
nation of rights, they say, a “proceeding” should at least in-
volve some judicial action or conclusive determination of
rights. See Brief for Respondent 34–37; 82 F. 4th, at 922–
923.
 Although it is true that statutory terms must be read in
the context of their neighbors, that rule cuts the other way
here. To read “proceeding” to require a judicial determina-
tion would strip it of any independent meaning. Any formal
judicial determination of a party’s rights is bound to be an
“order.” See Black’s 1298 (defining “order” as “[e]very di-
rection of a court or judge made or entered in writing”). So,
if the term “proceeding” covers only judicial determinations,
it is hard to imagine what the term “proceeding” would en-
compass that is not already covered by the term “order.”
 Such a limited reading of “proceeding” is contrary to the
general structure of Rule 60(b). When the Rule authorizes
relief from a “judgment, order, or proceeding,” it speaks in
an ascending order of generality. It starts with the narrow-
est category, “judgments,” and then moves to a broader cat-
egory, “orders.” Any “judgment” will generally involve an
“order,” but not all “orders” are “judgments.” That suggests
12 WAETZIG v. HALLIBURTON ENERGY SERVICES, INC.

 Opinion of the Court

that each term should be read as broader than what came
before. Just as “order” encompasses and exceeds “judg-
ment,” “proceeding” should encompass and exceed “order.”
It would be odd, therefore, to read “proceeding” as covering
only those acts that are already covered by the term “order.”
 Halliburton intuitively grasps this point. To avoid a com-
plete overlap between “order” and “proceeding,” it tries to
conjure up examples of what might count as a “proceeding”
under its definition while not being an “order.” But in doing
so, Halliburton only reinforces the commonsense conclusion
that a voluntary dismissal without prejudice counts as a
proceeding. For example, Halliburton suggests that a vol-
untary dismissal with prejudice may qualify as a “proceed-
ing.” Brief for Respondent 37. But there is no reason why
a voluntary dismissal with prejudice would count as a “pro-
ceeding” while a voluntary dismissal without prejudice
would not. Both consist in the simple filing of a paper on
the docket. See Rule 41(a)(1)(A). Halliburton contends that
a dismissal with prejudice is different because it “imposes
legal burdens.” Brief for Respondent 37. But a voluntary
dismissal without prejudice does so as well. For example,
Waetzig’s dismissal apparently precluded him from contin-
uing to pursue his claims—not because his dismissal was
with prejudice, but because the relevant statute of limita-
tions had already expired. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 11, 19–20.
 In sum, the text, context, and structure of Rule 60(b)
show that the term “proceeding” encompasses all steps
taken in the action, including a voluntary dismissal without
prejudice.
 C
 Finally, our reading of Rule 60(b) is buttressed by the his-
torical context in which the Rule was enacted. The original
version of the Rule was based on a then-extant provision in
the California Code of Civil Procedure, §473. See Advisory
Committee’s 1946 Note on subd. (b) of Fed. Rule Civ. Proc.
 Cite as: 604 U. S. ____ (2025) 13

 Opinion of the Court

60. That provision permitted a court to “relieve a party . . .
from a judgment, order, or other proceeding.” Cal. Code
Civ. Proc. §473 (Deering 1937). And prior to the enactment
of Rule 60(b), the Supreme Court of California had read
that provision to apply to voluntary dismissals. According
to the California court, a plaintiff who “consented to [a] dis-
missal to his injury, under a mistake of fact, excusable un-
der the terms of the statute, . . . is not barred of relief.” Pal-
ace Hardware Co. v. Smith, 134 Cal. 381, 384 , 66 P. 474,
476 (1901). And the California court made clear that the
existence of prejudice was immaterial: “Whether . . . a vol-
untary dismissal . . . bars a future action, need not be con-
sidered. If the plaintiff is entitled to relief under the stat-
ute, it is not material whether, in its absence, he could have
relief either at law or in equity.” Id., at 385 , 66 P., at 476 .
 When read in light of this history, it makes sense that
Rule 60(b) would likewise extend to voluntary dismissals
without prejudice. The provision was “expressly modeled”
after a statute that ostensibly permitted such relief. See
Hall, 584 U. S., at 72–73 (reading Rule 42(a) in light of “its
statutory predecessor”). And although the Rule has been
amended substantially since then, the amendments have
always retained the original candidates for relief: judg-
ments, orders, or proceedings. To be sure, the Rule now
specifies that the judgments, orders, or proceedings must
be “final.” But, as we have already explained, the term “fi-
nal” does not exclude voluntary dismissals without preju-
dice from the reach of the Rule. See supra, at 6–9. There
is no reason to think, then, that such dismissals have since
escaped the Rule’s coverage.
 IV
 For the above reasons, a Rule 41(a) voluntary dismissal
without prejudice counts as a “final proceeding” under Rule
60(b). When the requirements of Rule 60(b) are satisfied, a
district court may relieve a party from such a dismissal and
14 WAETZIG v. HALLIBURTON ENERGY SERVICES, INC.

 Opinion of the Court

reopen the case. We express no view on whether that relief
was proper in Waetzig’s case. Nor do we reach the question
whether the court below could exercise jurisdiction over
Waetzig’s motion to vacate the arbitration award. Those
questions are left to the court below on remand, to the ex-
tent the relevant arguments have been preserved.
 The judgment of the Tenth Circuit is reversed, and the
case remanded for further proceedings consistent with this
opinion.
 It is so ordered.

(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2024 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337 . SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus WAETZIG v. HALLIBURTON ENERGY SERVICES, INC. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT No. 23–971. Argued January 14, 2025—Decided February 26, 2025 Gary Waetzig filed a federal age-discrimination lawsuit against his for- mer employer Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. He later submitted his claims for arbitration, and voluntarily dismissed his federal law- suit without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a). Af- ter losing at arbitration, he asked the District Court to reopen his dis- missed lawsuit and vacate the arbitration award, asserting Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) as the basis for reopening the suit. Fed- eral Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) permits relief from a “final judgment, order, or proceeding.” The District Court reopened the case, finding that a voluntary dismissal without prejudice counts as a “final pro- ceeding” and that Waetzig made a mistake when he dismissed his case rather than seeking a stay. The District Court separately granted Waetzig’s motion to vacate the arbitration award. The Tenth Circuit reversed. Held: A case voluntarily dismissed without prejudice under Rule 41(a) counts as a “final proceeding” under Rule 60(b). Pp. 4–14. (a) The Court does not address Halliburton’s argument regarding jurisdiction over the motion to vacate. The question whether Rule 60(b) permits reopening a case that was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice is antecedent to jurisdictional questions about the motion to vacate. The lower courts may address those questions on remand. Pp. 4–6. (b) Text, context, and history support the conclusion that a Rule 41(a) voluntary dismissal without prejudice qualifies as a “final pro- ceeding” under Rule 60(b). Pp. 6–14. (1) A voluntary dismissal is “final” because it terminates the case. 2 WAETZIG v. HALLIBURTON ENERGY SERVICES, INC. Syllabus This straightforward reading aligns with legal dictionaries from 1946 (when “final” first appeared in the Rule) and is confirmed by Advisory Committee Notes to the 1946 Amendment to the Rule. The word “fi- nal” underscores that Rule 60(b) does not infringe a court’s inherent and distinct power to revise its interlocutory decrees in an ongoing case. Halliburton’s request to construe “final” consistent with jurisdic- tional statutes like 28 U. S. C. §1291 , which gives the Courts of Ap- peals jurisdiction over appeals from “final decisions” of district courts, is unpersuasive. The finality concept in appellate jurisdiction serves a distinct purpose—preventing interlocutory appeals from impairing case resolution at the trial level. Finality under Rule 60(b) does not play a similar role. Unlike an appeal filed under the appellate juris- diction statute, a motion for relief under Rule 60(b) is discretionary, not a matter of statutory right. Rule 60(b) therefore does not pose the same risk to efficient case resolution before the trial courts. The Court sees no reason to import the understanding of finality that applies in the field of appellate jurisdiction to the different context of Rule 60(b). Pp. 6–9. (2) A voluntary dismissal counts as a “proceeding” under Rule 60(b). Legal dictionaries from 1938 to present suggest that the term “proceeding” encompasses all steps in an action’s progression. Other federal rules similarly treat “proceeding” as including all formal steps in an action. Halliburton, and the court below, assert that the term “proceeding” should be read in the context of its neighboring terms “judgment” and “order.” And because a “judgment” and “order” both involve some ju- dicial determination of rights, a “proceeding” should at least involve some judicial action or conclusive determination of rights. Although it is true that statutory terms must be read in the context of their neigh- bors, that rule cuts the other way in this case. The proposed alterna- tive reading would strip “proceeding” of independent meaning, as any judicial determination would already be an “order.” When Rule 60(b) authorizes relief from a “judgment, order, or proceeding,” the Rule speaks in an ascending order of generality. The structure of the Rule suggests that each term should be read as broader than what came before. Pp. 10–12. (3) The Court’s reading is buttressed by historical context, as Rule 60(b) was modeled after a California statute previously interpreted to extend to voluntary dismissals without prejudice. See Hall v. Hall, 584 U. S. 59 , 72–73 (reading Rule 42(a) in light of “its statutory predeces- sor”). Pp. 12–13. 82 F. 4th 918 , reversed and remanded. Cite as: 604 U. S. ____ (2025) 3 Syllabus ALITO, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. Cite as: 604 U. S. ____ (2025) 1 Opinion of the Court NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D. C. 20543, pio@supremecourt.gov, of any typographical or other formal errors. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES _________________ No. 23–971 _________________ GARY WAETZIG, PETITIONER v. HALLIBURTON ENERGY SERVICES, INC. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT [February 26, 2025] JUSTICE ALITO delivered the opinion of the Court. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) permits a court, “[o]n motion and just terms,” to “relieve a party . . . from a final judgment, order, or proceeding.” The question in this case is whether Rule 60(b) permits a district court to reopen a case that was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice un- der Rule 41(a). We hold that such a dismissal counts as a “final judgment, order, or proceeding,” and thus qualifies for Rule 60(b) relief. I A This case began as an employment dispute. Petitioner Gary Waetzig is a former employee of respondent Hallibur- ton Energy Services, Inc. Following his termination, Waetzig filed a lawsuit against Halliburton in the U. S. Dis- trict Court for the District of Colorado. He alleged that he was illegally terminated on the basis of his age, in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 81 Stat. 602 , as amended, 29 U. S. C. §621 et seq. In response, Halliburton asserted that Waetzig was required to arbi- trate his claim. Waetzig acquiesced and submitted his 2 WAETZIG v. HALLIBURTON ENERGY SERVICES, INC. Opinion of the Court claims for arbitration. At that point, Waetzig could have asked the District Court to stay his federal lawsuit pending the arbitration proceedings. See 9 U. S. C. §3 ; Smith v. Spizzirri, 601 U. S. 472, 476 (2024). Instead, he elected to dismiss the case un- der Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a). Under that Rule, a plaintiff may dismiss his case “without a court order” if he serves “a notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for summary judg- ment.” Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Since Halliburton had not yet served an answer or moved for summary judgment, Waetzig’s dismissal was effective without any court action. And given that this was the first time Waetzig had dis- missed these claims, his dismissal was presumptively “without prejudice.” Rule 41(a)(1)(B). That means that Waetzig had preserved his right to refile the same claims in the future. Semtek Int’l Inc. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 531 U. S. 497, 505 (2001). Waetzig lost at arbitration. After a telephonic hearing, the arbitrator issued an award granting summary judg- ment in favor of Halliburton. In Waetzig’s view, however, the arbitrator failed to follow various procedural rules re- quired by the parties’ arbitration agreement. To remedy that alleged error, Waetzig turned back to federal court. B Waetzig’s next move was procedurally creative. Instead of filing a new lawsuit in federal court attacking the validity of the arbitration award, he returned to the lawsuit that he had previously dismissed. He filed a motion under the old docket number and asked the court to reopen that case and vacate the arbitration award. That move created an obvi- ous problem: As we already explained, Waetzig’s dismissal under Rule 41(a) terminated his case. So, in theory, filing a new motion in the case was impossible. The District Court was therefore skeptical of Waetzig’s gambit. It issued Cite as: 604 U. S. ____ (2025) 3 Opinion of the Court an order asking him to show cause that would justify the court’s taking jurisdiction over the motion. In response, Waetzig asserted that the District Court could reopen the case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). Rule 60(b) permits a court, “[o]n motion and just terms,” to “relieve a party . . . from a final judgment, order, or pro- ceeding.” A court may do so for six enumerated “reasons,” including “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable ne- glect.” See Rule 60(b)(1). The general “purpose” of the Rule, we have said, is “to make an exception to finality.” Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U. S. 524, 529 (2005). The Rule “attempts to strike a proper balance between the conflicting principles that litigation must be brought to an end and that justice should be done.” 11 C. Wright, A. Miller, & M. Kane, Fed- eral Practice and Procedure §2851, p. 286 (3d ed. 2012). Here, the District Court agreed with Waetzig and awarded Rule 60(b) relief. First, it held that a voluntary dismissal without prejudice counts as a “final proceeding” and therefore falls within the ambit of the Rule. App. to Pet. for Cert. 55a–56a. Second, it found that Waetzig had committed a “careless mistake” when he voluntarily dis- missed his case instead of moving for a stay pending arbi- tration or administratively closing the case. Id., at 59a. Ac- cording to the District Court, Waetzig did so under the false understanding that the court would retain jurisdiction over the arbitration agreement. Ibid. The court thus found that relief was proper under Rule 60(b)(1). Ibid. And after reo- pening the case under that provision,1 the court issued a separate order granting Waetzig’s motion to vacate the ar- bitration award. Id., at 48a. —————— 1 The District Court additionally found that relief was warranted un- der Rule 60(b)(6), which permits relief for “any other reason that justifies relief.” In the District Court’s view, an intervening precedent from our Court affected Waetzig’s right to refile a new case, justifying relief under Rule 60(b)(6). App. to Pet. for Cert. 59a–62a (citing Badgerow v. Walters, 596 U. S. 1 (2022)). 4 WAETZIG v. HALLIBURTON ENERGY SERVICES, INC. Opinion of the Court Halliburton appealed. Among other things, it argued that a voluntary dismissal without prejudice does not count as a “final judgment, order, or proceeding,” and therefore falls outside the reach of Rule 60(b). Brief for Appellant in No. 22–1252 (CA10, Nov. 14, 2022), ECF Doc. 25, pp. 23– 26. The Tenth Circuit agreed. It reasoned that Waetzig’s voluntary dismissal was not a final “judgment” or “order” because the act of dismissal required neither the entry of a judgment nor the issuance of an order by the court. 82 F. 4th 918 , 921 (2023). The Tenth Circuit then concluded that a voluntary dismissal without prejudice could not be a “final proceeding” because, in its view, “a final proceeding must involve, at a minimum, a judicial determination with finality.” Id., at 923 . In so holding, the Tenth Circuit split from other Circuits that have considered the issue. See Yesh Music v. Lakewood Church, 727 F. 3d 356 , 362–363 (CA5 2013) (“[W]e are satisfied that a Rule 41(a)(1)(A) vol- untary dismissal without prejudice qualifies as a ‘final pro- ceeding’ ”); accord, Nelson v. Napolitano, 657 F. 3d 586, 589 (CA7 2011). We granted certiorari to decide whether a Rule 41(a) dis- missal without prejudice is a “final judgment, order, or pro- ceeding” under Rule 60(b). 603 U. S. ___ (2024). II Before reaching that question, however, we first address a preliminary issue related to jurisdiction. Halliburton claims that the District Court lacked jurisdiction over Waetzig’s motion to vacate the arbitration award. In sup- port of its argument, Halliburton points to this Court’s de- cisions in Badgerow v. Walters, 596 U. S. 1 (2022), and Kok- konen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U. S. 375 (1994). We need not address the merits of this argument, however, because it presents no barrier to our deciding the question presented. We granted certiorari to decide whether Rule 60(b) permits a court to reopen a case that Cite as: 604 U. S. ____ (2025) 5 Opinion of the Court was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice. That ques- tion is separate from, and antecedent to, the question whether the District Court could exercise jurisdiction over Waetzig’s motion to vacate. The cases Halliburton cites prove the point. In Badgerow, we addressed the jurisdiction of the federal courts to consider motions to vacate arbitration awards filed under a provision of the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U. S. C. §10 (a). We held that a plaintiff seeking to vacate an arbitration award must point to an “ ‘independent juris- dictional basis’ ” that would authorize a federal court to de- cide the matter. Badgerow, 596 U. S., at 8 (quoting Hall Street Associates, L. L. C. v. Mattel, Inc., 552 U. S 576, 582 (2008)). In the other case, Kokkonen, we suggested that Rule 60(b) cannot confer jurisdiction upon a federal court where jurisdiction would not otherwise exist. 511 U. S., at 378 . We reasoned that reopening a case under Rule 60(b) would not automatically confer jurisdiction over a subse- quent motion to enforce a settlement agreement. Ibid. The upshot of our analysis in Kokkonen was that, even though Rule 60(b) might give a court the power to reopen a case, the Rule cannot itself serve as the basis for federal jurisdic- tion. Although these cases might bear on the District Court’s jurisdiction over Waetzig’s motion to vacate, they say noth- ing at all about whether the District Court had the power, under Rule 60(b), to reopen Waetzig’s case in the first place. That power is the focus of our decision today, and it must be addressed before any subsequent jurisdictional ques- tions is considered. The procedural history of this case con- firms as much. Before the District Court could rule on Waetzig’s motion to vacate, it first needed to reopen his case. Consistent with that understanding, the court issued two separate orders: first, an order reopening the case pur- suant to Rule 60(b), see App. to Pet. for Cert. 64a, and sec- ond, an order vacating the arbitration award, see id., at 6 WAETZIG v. HALLIBURTON ENERGY SERVICES, INC. Opinion of the Court 48a. We granted certiorari to address the District Court’s power to issue the first order, not its jurisdiction to issue the second. We leave it to the lower courts to address any subsequent jurisdictional questions on remand. III That brings us to the question presented. Rule 60(b) per- mits a court to “relieve a party . . . from a final judgment, order, or proceeding.” We hold that a Rule 41(a) voluntary dismissal without prejudice qualifies as a “final . . . proceed- ing” under Rule 60(b). Text, context, and history support that interpretation. A 1 To start, we hold that a voluntary dismissal without prej- udice is “final” under Rule 60(b). In 1946, when the term “final” first appeared in the Rule, legal dictionaries defined “final” to mean “[d]efinitive; terminating; completed; con- clusive; last.” Black’s Law Dictionary 779 (3d ed. 1933) (Black’s); see Ballentine’s Law Dictionary 503 (1930) (“the end, ultimate, or last”). By way of illustration, Black’s Law Dictionary defined “final order” as an order that “termi- nates the action itself.” Black’s 1298. A voluntary dismis- sal without prejudice falls comfortably within this defini- tion. The dismissal is the “conclusive” and “last” filing on the docket, and it “complete[s]” the particular lawsuit at is- sue. Id., at 779. And, like a “final order,” the dismissal “terminates the action itself.” Id., at 1298. That straightforward reading of “final” is confirmed by the Federal Rules Advisory Committee’s Notes, which are “ ‘a reliable source of insight into the meaning of a rule.’ ” Hall v. Hall, 584 U. S. 59, 75 (2018) (quoting United States v. Vonn, 535 U. S. 55, 64, n. 6 (2002)). In the Notes accom- panying the 1946 amendments to Rule 60(b), the Commit- tee briefly explained its reason for adding the term “final.” Cite as: 604 U. S. ____ (2025) 7 Opinion of the Court According to the Committee, the addition of “final” clarified that “interlocutory judgments are not brought within the restrictions of the Rule, but rather they are left subject to the complete power of the court rendering them to afford such relief from them as justice requires.” Advisory Com- mittee’s 1946 Note on subd. (b) of Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 60, 28 U. S. C. App., p. 289. The term “final” was therefore intended to exclude “inter- locutory judgments” from the reach of the Rule. And, as the Committee Notes explain, that exclusion makes sense. Rule 60(b) relief from interlocutory judgments is unneces- sary because, with respect to those judgments, “a rehearing may be sought at any time before [the] final decree, pro- vided due diligence be employed and a revision be otherwise consonant with equity.” John Simmons Co. v. Grier Broth- ers Co., 258 U. S. 82 , 90–91 (1922). In other words, a court presiding over a case is always capable of revising an inter- locutory ruling, so long as a revision is “consonant with eq- uity.” Id., at 91 . The word “final” underscores that Rule 60(b) does not infringe that inherent and distinct power. After a case is finally terminated, however, a court no longer presides, and a party can no longer seek a “rehear- ing” on an interlocutory judgment. Ibid. It is at that point that a court’s power under Rule 60(b) kicks in, permitting the court to look back at the “final” act in a case and provide relief from that act when appropriate. A voluntary dismis- sal without prejudice is one such “final” act. It terminates the case and strips a court of its equitable power to revise its earlier rulings. At that point, Rule 60(b) is the appropri- ate avenue for relief. A contrary interpretation would place voluntary dismis- sals without prejudice into a procedural no man’s land. Such dismissals would not be “interlocutory” in the manner that the Committee Notes discuss because they are outside of a court’s “complete power” over an ongoing case. Nor 8 WAETZIG v. HALLIBURTON ENERGY SERVICES, INC. Opinion of the Court would they be “final” and thus subject to Rule 60(b). Halli- burton provides no evidence supporting the existence of any third category. If a voluntary dismissal without prejudice is not “interlocutory,” then it is hard to imagine that it could be anything but “final.” 2 Halliburton nevertheless presses for a narrower defini- tion of “final.” Specifically, it asks the Court to construe “final” in Rule 60(b) to mean essentially what it means in jurisdictional statutes like 28 U. S. C. §1291 , which gives the Courts of Appeals jurisdiction over appeals from “final decisions” of district courts. This grant of appellate juris- diction can be traced back to the first Judiciary Act. See Judiciary Act of 1789, §22, 1 Stat. 84 . And long before the adoption of Rule 60(b), this Court had developed a rich ju- risprudence explaining the meaning of “final” as it relates to appellate jurisdiction. See Bostwick v. Brinkerhoff, 106 U. S. 3 , 3–4 (1882) (citing cases). Halliburton asks us to look to that “ ‘legal lineage’ ” when interpreting Rule 60(b). Brief for Respondent 22 (quoting Hall, 584 U. S., at 66 ). Based on that body of case law, Halliburton contends that a determination is “final” principally when it “ ‘terminate[s] the litigation between the parties on the merits of the case.’ ” Brief for Respondent 23 (quoting Bostwick, 106 U. S., at 3 ; alterations in original; emphasis added). Contrary to Halliburton’s suggestion, however, we do not find this body of case law helpful in interpreting the mean- ing of the term “final” in Rule 60(b). True, we sometimes look to legal tradition when interpreting a statutory term, but we typically do so only when the term is “ ‘obviously transplanted from another legal source.’ ” Taggart v. Lo- renzen, 587 U. S. 554, 560 (2019) (quoting Hall, 584 U. S., at 73 ). Here, there is little reason to think that the term “final” in Rule 60(b) was transplanted from statutes govern- ing the jurisdiction of federal appellate courts. In that field, Cite as: 604 U. S. ____ (2025) 9 Opinion of the Court the concept of finality plays a distinctive role: It prevents interlocutory appeals from unduly impairing the resolution of civil and criminal cases at the trial level. Under 28 U. S. C. §1291 and predecessor provisions, a party that loses in the district court has a “statutory right” to take an appeal from any “final decision.” Arizona v. Manypenny, 451 U. S. 232, 245, n. 19 (1981). Our decisions defining what the term “final” means in this context have imposed an important practical limit on such appeals. We have de- scribed the finality requirement as “the means for achiev- ing a healthy legal system.” Cobbledick v. United States, 309 U. S. 323, 326 (1940). Without it, too many trial court rulings could be appealed, and “ ‘the orderly progress of a cause’ ” would be halted while the appellate court consid- ered all sorts of “ ‘question[s] which ha[ve] happened to cross the path of such litigation.’ ” Ibid. (quoting Segurola v. United States, 275 U. S. 106, 112 (1927)). Finality under Rule 60(b) does not play a similar role. Unlike an appeal filed under the appellate jurisdiction stat- ute, a motion for relief under Rule 60(b) is discretionary, not “a matter of statutory right.” Manypenny, 451 U. S., at 245, n. 19 . Further, Rule 60(b) relief is unnecessary when a case is ongoing because during that time, a court retains jurisdiction to review and modify its decrees. See supra, at 7. Thus, there is no reason to fear that Rule 60(b) will be abused to bring about a “ ‘halt in the orderly progress of a cause.’ ” Cobbledick, 309 U. S., at 326 (quoting Segurola, 275 U. S., at 112 ). And, even if such abuse were possible, Rule 60(b) provides district courts with ample discretion to prevent it. Given these stark contextual differences, it is unlikely that “final” as it appears in Rule 60(b) was trans- planted from the appellate jurisdiction statute. We therefore see no reason to import the understanding of finality that applies in the field of appellate jurisdiction. In the context of Rule 60(b), a voluntary dismissal without prejudice is “final” because it terminates the case. 10 WAETZIG v. HALLIBURTON ENERGY SERVICES, INC. Opinion of the Court B Next, we hold that a voluntary dismissal without preju- dice counts as a “proceeding” under Rule 60(b).2 In 1938, when the term “proceeding” first appeared in the Rule, Black’s Law Dictionary defined “proceeding” as: “[T]he form and manner of conducting juridical business before a court or judicial officer; regular and orderly progress in form of law; including all possible steps in an action from its com- mencement to the execution of judgment.” Black’s 1430. Other dictionaries defined the term similarly. See Ballen- tine’s Law Dictionary, at 1023 (“the form in which actions are to be brought and defended, the manner of intervening in suits [and] of conducting them . . . ” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Webster’s New International Dictionary 1710 (1927) (“[a]ny step or act taken in conducting litiga- tion”). These definitions suggest that the term “proceeding” encompasses all steps in an action, including the filing of papers that are noted on the docket. Even today, Black’s Law Dictionary defines “proceeding” as “[t]he regular and orderly progression of a lawsuit, including all acts and events between the time of commencement and the entry of judgment.” Black’s 1459 (12th ed. 2024) (emphasis added). Other Federal Rules similarly treat “proceeding” as in- cluding all formal steps taken in an action. Take, for exam- ple, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37. Under that Rule, a court may stay “further proceedings” in a case until a dis- covery order is obeyed. Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(iv). In that con- text, a stay of “proceedings” likely refers to a stay of any further action in the lawsuit, including further docket fil- ings. If read otherwise, the stay would be an ineffective sanction against a party’s disobedience. Similarly, Rule 41 —————— 2 Waetzig additionally contends that a voluntary dismissal without prejudice counts as a “judgment.” See Brief for Petitioner 25–29. Be- cause we hold that such dismissals qualify as proceedings, we need not decide whether they qualify as judgments for the purposes of Rule 60(b). Cite as: 604 U. S. ____ (2025) 11 Opinion of the Court permits a court to “stay the proceedings” until a plaintiff pays the costs of a previously dismissed action. Rule 41(d)(2). As with Rule 37, that would be a relatively tooth- less sanction if “proceedings” did not encompass all further actions in the case. Halliburton and the court below offer an alternative def- inition. They argue that the term “proceeding” is “ ‘given more precise content by the neighboring words with which it is associated.’ ” Fischer v. United States, 603 U. S. 480, 487 (2024) (quoting United States v. Williams, 553 U. S. 285, 294 (2008)). Specifically, they assert that the term “proceeding” should be read to include the characteristics of the terms that come before it: “judgment” and “order.” See Rule 60(b) (“judgment, order, or proceeding”). Since a “judgment” and “order” both involve some judicial determi- nation of rights, they say, a “proceeding” should at least in- volve some judicial action or conclusive determination of rights. See Brief for Respondent 34–37; 82 F. 4th, at 922– 923. Although it is true that statutory terms must be read in the context of their neighbors, that rule cuts the other way here. To read “proceeding” to require a judicial determina- tion would strip it of any independent meaning. Any formal judicial determination of a party’s rights is bound to be an “order.” See Black’s 1298 (defining “order” as “[e]very di- rection of a court or judge made or entered in writing”). So, if the term “proceeding” covers only judicial determinations, it is hard to imagine what the term “proceeding” would en- compass that is not already covered by the term “order.” Such a limited reading of “proceeding” is contrary to the general structure of Rule 60(b). When the Rule authorizes relief from a “judgment, order, or proceeding,” it speaks in an ascending order of generality. It starts with the narrow- est category, “judgments,” and then moves to a broader cat- egory, “orders.” Any “judgment” will generally involve an “order,” but not all “orders” are “judgments.” That suggests 12 WAETZIG v. HALLIBURTON ENERGY SERVICES, INC. Opinion of the Court that each term should be read as broader than what came before. Just as “order” encompasses and exceeds “judg- ment,” “proceeding” should encompass and exceed “order.” It would be odd, therefore, to read “proceeding” as covering only those acts that are already covered by the term “order.” Halliburton intuitively grasps this point. To avoid a com- plete overlap between “order” and “proceeding,” it tries to conjure up examples of what might count as a “proceeding” under its definition while not being an “order.” But in doing so, Halliburton only reinforces the commonsense conclusion that a voluntary dismissal without prejudice counts as a proceeding. For example, Halliburton suggests that a vol- untary dismissal with prejudice may qualify as a “proceed- ing.” Brief for Respondent 37. But there is no reason why a voluntary dismissal with prejudice would count as a “pro- ceeding” while a voluntary dismissal without prejudice would not. Both consist in the simple filing of a paper on the docket. See Rule 41(a)(1)(A). Halliburton contends that a dismissal with prejudice is different because it “imposes legal burdens.” Brief for Respondent 37. But a voluntary dismissal without prejudice does so as well. For example, Waetzig’s dismissal apparently precluded him from contin- uing to pursue his claims—not because his dismissal was with prejudice, but because the relevant statute of limita- tions had already expired. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 11, 19–20. In sum, the text, context, and structure of Rule 60(b) show that the term “proceeding” encompasses all steps taken in the action, including a voluntary dismissal without prejudice. C Finally, our reading of Rule 60(b) is buttressed by the his- torical context in which the Rule was enacted. The original version of the Rule was based on a then-extant provision in the California Code of Civil Procedure, §473. See Advisory Committee’s 1946 Note on subd. (b) of Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. Cite as: 604 U. S. ____ (2025) 13 Opinion of the Court 60. That provision permitted a court to “relieve a party . . . from a judgment, order, or other proceeding.” Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §473 (Deering 1937). And prior to the enactment of Rule 60(b), the Supreme Court of California had read that provision to apply to voluntary dismissals. According to the California court, a plaintiff who “consented to [a] dis- missal to his injury, under a mistake of fact, excusable un- der the terms of the statute, . . . is not barred of relief.” Pal- ace Hardware Co. v. Smith, 134 Cal. 381, 384 , 66 P. 474, 476 (1901). And the California court made clear that the existence of prejudice was immaterial: “Whether . . . a vol- untary dismissal . . . bars a future action, need not be con- sidered. If the plaintiff is entitled to relief under the stat- ute, it is not material whether, in its absence, he could have relief either at law or in equity.” Id., at 385 , 66 P., at 476 . When read in light of this history, it makes sense that Rule 60(b) would likewise extend to voluntary dismissals without prejudice. The provision was “expressly modeled” after a statute that ostensibly permitted such relief. See Hall, 584 U. S., at 72–73 (reading Rule 42(a) in light of “its statutory predecessor”). And although the Rule has been amended substantially since then, the amendments have always retained the original candidates for relief: judg- ments, orders, or proceedings. To be sure, the Rule now specifies that the judgments, orders, or proceedings must be “final.” But, as we have already explained, the term “fi- nal” does not exclude voluntary dismissals without preju- dice from the reach of the Rule. See supra, at 6–9. There is no reason to think, then, that such dismissals have since escaped the Rule’s coverage. IV For the above reasons, a Rule 41(a) voluntary dismissal without prejudice counts as a “final proceeding” under Rule 60(b). When the requirements of Rule 60(b) are satisfied, a district court may relieve a party from such a dismissal and 14 WAETZIG v. HALLIBURTON ENERGY SERVICES, INC. Opinion of the Court reopen the case. We express no view on whether that relief was proper in Waetzig’s case. Nor do we reach the question whether the court below could exercise jurisdiction over Waetzig’s motion to vacate the arbitration award. Those questions are left to the court below on remand, to the ex- tent the relevant arguments have been preserved. The judgment of the Tenth Circuit is reversed, and the case remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. It is so ordered.

Waetzig v. Halliburton Energy Services

Why tracked

Lineup

Opinions

Archived opinion text

Waetzig v. Halliburton Energy Services

Why tracked

Lineup

Opinions

Archived opinion text