United States v. Washington (21-404)

argument 21-404

United States v. Washington

Supreme Court of the United States 1h 3m 6 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 7 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

Why does the United States argue that the case is not moot?

John G. Roberts 0:00

We will hear argument first this morning in case twenty one four oh four, United States versus Washington. Mr Stewart?

Unknown 0:10

Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court. First, this case is not moot. We acknowledge that Washington's recent enactment of S. B. fifty eight ninety makes it uncertain whether a decision invalidating H. B. 1723 will ultimately produce any financial benefit to the United States. Under this Court's precedence, however, the United States is a very important The case is not moot so long as there is a reasonable possibility that such a benefit will ensue. Respondents have not carried their heavy burden of negating that possibility. Second, H. B. 1723 discriminates against the Federal Government and those with whom it deals. On its face, it is limited to a specific Federal facility, and even within that facility, it applies only to workers engaged in the performance of Federal contracts, not to State or purely private workers.

Unknown 1:00

Third, HB 317 USC thirty one seventy two A does not authorize that discriminatory treatment. Properly understood, Section 3172A authorizes Washington to apply even handedly to Federal facilities the same workers' compensation laws that apply in other workplaces in the State. It does not authorize Washington to subject Federal contractors at the Hanford facility to uniquely onerous burdens. I welcome the Court's questions.

Clarence Thomas 1:31

Uh Mr Stewart, could you give us uh uh a more fulsome uh explanation of the financial interests of the United States in the uh case uh considering uh uh in the context of the mootness argument.

Unknown 1:49

Well, before S B fifty eight ninety was passed, there was no question that the United States had a financial interest in the case. That is, even though the financial burdens would fall in the first instance on the Federal contractors, the United States has entered into various arrangements whereby it would absorb those costs. And most significantly, it has entered into a memorandum of understanding with the State Agency. Whereby it would act as a self-insurer and would pay any increased workers' compensation costs attributable to most of the Federal contracts on the site. And so the question for purposes of mootness is whether the enactment of SB 5890 has effectively divested the United States of that financial interest.

Unknown 2:34

And the respondents have identified two possible reasons that that might be. might be so. First, they have said SB 5890 covers all of the workers who were previously covered by H. B. 1723 and some more as well. And therefore it says even if we were able to get the workers' claim under H. B. 1723 declared invalid or set aside, it wouldn't produce any financial benefit for the United States because the workers Could always refile under SB 5890 and could obtain the same benefits on the same terms. We think it is not a natural construction of the new statutory language to say that the coverage would be coextensive in that way. H. B. 1723 applied to all DOE Hanford facility workers at specified but broadly defined locations within the Hanford section.

Unknown 3:29

Site without regard to the proximity of their work to the actual storage or treatment of hazardous waste. And by contrast, the crucial language in SB 5890 is structures and their lands, where specified categories of wastes are stored and disposed of. And the phrase structures and their lands is not self-defining, but you would imagine that the language Lands are areas outside the structure that are in fairly close proximity to the structure itself. We've identified two types of structures. One is a waste treatment facility at the center of the site that is currently under construction, meaning that waste will ultimately be treated there, but that's not happening yet. And that workers at that facility would not naturally be said to be working on structures

Unknown 4:19

And their lands where wastes are being treated or disposed of. The same thing applies to some of the Hanford office workers who worked in structures where there were no hazardous wastes. So we think that there is at least an open question whether some of the workers who were covered by H.