Acheson Hotels, LLC v. Laufer (22-429)

argument 22-429

Acheson Hotels, LLC v. Laufer

Supreme Court of the United States 1h 24m 8 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 8 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What is the central dispute over standing in Acheson Hotels v. Laufer?

John G. Roberts 0:00

We will hear argument this morning in case twenty two four twenty nine, Acheson Hotels

Michael T. Yunikowski 0:05

versus Laufort. Mr. Yunikowski? Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the court. Respondent does not face an imminent injury from the absence of accessibility information at the website of a hotel she has no interest in visiting. Respondent faces neither an informational injury nor a stigmatic injury. She does not face an informational injury because she has no use for the information she seeks. She's not interested in going to the hotel, so she has no reason for information about whether it is accessible. Nor does she face a stigmatic injury. This court has held that a person is injured when she is personally subject to unequal treatment, but that requirement is not satisfied by a plaintiff who searches for hotel websites on the internet to check whether they comply with her interpretation of the ADA.

Michael T. Yunikowski 0:53

Finally, the court should decide the question presented in this case.

How do the parties argue that the plaintiff lacks an informational or stigmatic injury?

Michael T. Yunikowski 0:56

The circuits are divided, the question is important, the arguments are fully aired, and if the court doesn't decide the question here, it may not have another opportunity to do so. The court should not bless a legal strategy of filing large numbers of lawsuits, settling almost all of them, and abandoning the rare case that threatens to create adverse precedents so as to facilitate the filing of another round of lawsuits. lawsuits. I welcome the Court's questions.

Clarence Thomas 1:22

Uh b but uh respondent says that uh she has withdrawn her suit, so why should we decide this? I it it seems as though it's it's finished.

Michael T. Yunikowski 1:32

Well respondent has withdrawn her suits. I mean she hasn't promised not to bring new suits in the future, and if she doesn't, another plaintiff presumably will. Respondent's position is that any person with a disability with accessibility needs in America who visits a website can bring a lawsuit, so presumably another plaintiff will come forward and and start bringing the same thing. Well do

Clarence Thomas 1:49

you admit though that it would be easier to simply uh uh moot this out and uh wait on a suit that uh is uh still pending uh for another round to discuss uh standing?

Michael T. Yunikowski 2:03

I'm actually not really sure it would be easier because I think that even if the court does what respondent asks, it would still be a significant precedential decision. I mean the court would essentially be be blessing the legal strategy over our objection of filing large numbers of lawsuits and and abandoning them at the last minute, and that I think would create a template for for future plaintiffs to rely upon. So I'm

Elena Kagan 2:21

sorry, I I don't understand. You admit that this plaintiff is not entitled to monetary relief.

Michael T. Yunikowski 2:29

Yes.

Elena Kagan 2:31

The hotel is owned by a different entity now, correct? Correct. And so You would need a new plaintiff And you would need a new defendant. Well you get a precedential to get a decision that's not advisory. is what you're saying to us, the issue is important. This plaintiff gets nothing. The defendant has to be different because it's a different entity running it. So tell me why it's not moot and tell me why we wouldn't be just giving an advisory opinion.

Michael T. Yunikowski 3:06

So if there was ever a live controversy, it's definitely moot at this point. We're not disputing that, Your Honor. What we are simply saying is that there was never a live controversy in the first place, and the court should therefore so hold. In other words, the court should say that whether its mood is sort of immaterial because from day one there wasn't a case or controversy.

Elena Kagan 3:23

I I am sorry, I don't know why you have ans haven't answered my question. Why isn't this purely advisory once there is no longer a live controversy between the parties before us?

Michael T. Yunikowski 3:34

I don't think it's an advisory opinion at all, Your Honor. Both parties agree that the correct disposition of this case is to hold that there's no Article Three case for controversy. We simply disagree on the reasoning for that.

Elena Kagan 3:43

Well there's prudential doctrines, sanding is one of them, mootness is another. But I'm aw I'm unaware of any case where uh this court had a standing and mootness issue.