Cummings v. Premier Rehab (20-219)

argument 20-219

Cummings v. Premier Rehab

Supreme Court of the United States 1h 20m 7 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 6 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 between the Fifth Circuit and the petitioners in Cummings v. Premier Rehab?

John G. Roberts 0:00

We'll hear argument first this morning in case number twenty two nineteen, Cummings versus Premier Rehab Keller. Mr. Rosinski.

Unknown 0:10

Mr Chief Justice, and may it please the court. The Fifth Circuit categorically prohibited emotional distress damages in all instances under spending clause statutes prohibiting discrimination. Based on Franklin Barnes, that decision is wrong. Franklin held that compensatory damages are available, and Barnes reaffirmed that holding. Emotional distress damages are the most common and often the only form of compensatory damage remedy for victims of intentional discrimination. Barnes held that remedies are available under the statutes here. They are traditionally available under contract law. Emotional distress damages are indeed recoverable in breach of contract cases for the type of conduct at issue here.

Unknown 0:57

As section three hundred five three of the second restatement and all the leading treatises cited in Barnes explain, when a contract's breach is of such a kind that serious emotional disturbance was a particularly likely result of Then recovery for emotional disturbance is allowed. Premier has not. and cannot dispute that serious emotional disturbance is a particularly likely result of intentional discrimination. Premier asked this Court to disregard the restatement rule. But there is no basis to do so. The particularly likely result concept has been long a fixture of the law And virtually all courts agree. that in contract cases involving places of public accommodations Improper denial of access traditionally gives rise to emotional distress damages.

Unknown 1:46

For all these reasons, the courts should reverse the Fifth Circuit Because emotional distress damages are available under spending clause legislation at issue here. With that, I welcome any questions from the Court and will move to the balance of my argument.

Clarence Thomas 2:01

If If we don't agree with you uh that the um emotional distress damages were traditionally available uh do you have uh s uh another argument?

Unknown 2:19

Yes, that in Franklin and what was reaffirmed in Barnes, the court has already found that compensatory damages are available. And Emotional distress is often the only and most common form of compensatory damage that one who is a victim of discrimination experiences.

Clarence Thomas 2:44

But do you in in in cases if you look at Barnes or Franklin? Uh those appear to be closer to either indifference or uh in Barnes or uh intentional tort in Franklin. Um do you would you say this is an intentional tort case?

Unknown 3:06

This is not an intentional tort case. What the Fifth Circuit did was categorically say that in all instances under the spending clause legislation at issue that emotional distress damages are categorically unavailable. And so that decis that decision by the Fifth Circuit is wrong.

John G. Roberts 3:30

I I understand the analogy uh uh to contract law, but uh what's necessary in the spending law context? I mean you can't just go and say You know, the Court of Appeal in Montana had decided this case and gave emotional distress damages. Therefore, in any case under the spending clause, uh the uh recipient uh is subjected to those damages. I mean what we have here is as I understand it, a fairly narrow category of compensatory damages in a very narrow well, a narrow category of cases. But let's say it's a hundred percent of those cases. I mean how many of those is those cases have to be present before you can say that a recipient uh i is bound by that under under Section five hundred four or the other Categories.

Unknown 4:22

Well, anyone could can go and uh go on Lexus or Westlaw and pick a case and find a case that says what they they want. But however you look to the There were statements and you look to the treatises to find what is the state of the law and and what uh exactly um is available and for these types of contracts what you will see that The statements and and all the leading treatises say that when there is a agreement to uh treat people fairly with equality, especially in discrimination cases, where you do not improperly exclude people from places of public accommodation.