Knox v. Service Employees (10-1121)

argument 10-1121

Knox v. Service Employees

Supreme Court of the United States 1h 1m 7 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 5 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 mootness in Knox v. SEIU?

John G. Roberts 0:02

We'll hear argument first this morning in case ten eleven twenty one, Knox versus the Service Employees International Union. Mr Young.

Philip C. Young 0:10

Mr Chief Justice, and may it please the Court. Before addressing SEIU's motion to dismiss vermootness, it is important to remember the underlying facts of this case. For ten months in two thousand five and two thousand six, more than thirty six thousand non members, or nearly forty percent of those employees represented by SEIU employed by the state of California. were compelled to contribute to SEIU's twelve million dollar political fight back fund. without being provided the opportunity to challenge the amount of the fee and to object to its exaction required by the First Amendment. Adding insult to that injury, the Ninth Circuit said that non members could never say no. to contributing to SEIU's political expenditures for ballot propositions, at least Proposition seventy six.

Philip C. Young 0:57

They have no right to refuse to bankroll that element of SEIU's political speech. This defies this Court's decisions, distorting the political process on a massive scale.

Anthony M. Kennedy 1:09

Mr. Young, could could I ask you to speak to the mootness question first? Just a direction of that. As as uh as I understand your brief, you're you're essentially saying that it's impossible to moot a claim for nominal damages. Is is is that a correct reading of your position?

Philip C. Young 1:26

I'm not sure I would go that far, Justice Kagan. I think in this case The Wishy washiness, as it were, of the language used by SEIU when it distributed this paste it on dollar to the class. or dollars more accurately, uh, was inadequate because it failed to represent the importance of the judgment that the non member class had won.

Anthony M. Kennedy 1:50

Ah, so that's a different point, right? Which is that the notice was inadequate. That would be correct. And when you say inadequate, I I I read you to be saying sort of not uh apologetic enough. And I uh in other words, not saying, look, you had a claim against us, we think you're right, it was a valid claim. Here's your judgment uh insatisfaction of that claim, that it didn't forthrightly say that. But do you think if it had forthrightly said that, we would be living in a different Article three universe?

Philip C. Young 2:22

Not in this case, Justice Kagan. Uh Turning to the adequacy of the notice, the the financial disclosure, that did not comply with the district court's judgment either. If if the only question were the distribution of nominal damages, then perhaps we would be living in that different Article three universe. But this case is about the judgment of the district court that the SEIU was attempting to comply with. They failed to do so in virtually all of its elements.

Anthony M. Kennedy 2:49

And h how is that? How did they fail to comply other than, you know, the question of whether they were forthright enough about the fact that they were satisfying a claim?

Philip C. Young 2:59

The uh the district court had ordered a a describe the type of notice that it anticipated. The district court specifically determined that SEIU's subsequent two thousand six financial disclosure was inadequate to cure the the d problem that was caused by the the seizure of fees starting in september two thousand five. And that's on seventy three A of uh the dis uh the petition uh appendix B. The Union in this case. merely sent the same financial disclosure in the notice that it sent to try to boot the case that it had sent in June of two thousand and six. Well the district court had already said this is inadequate. That seems to me to to uh and the inquiry. Obviously the district court did not contemplate

Philip C. Young 3:56

that the notice that was sent in june two thousand six satisfied the obligations of its judgment, else it hardly could have ordered. a uh useless act in ordering a new type of notice go out.

John G. Roberts 4:09

And and the reason that's important uh in terms of the content of the notice, the inadequacy is what?

Philip C. Young 4:15

The reason that is important, Justice uh Mr Chief Justice, excuse me, is that the uh SEIU is asserting that the case has become moot because it has now complied with the district court's judgment.