Elena Kagan Writes an Awesome Dissent

Four years ago Laura Symczyk filed a collective action against Genesis Healthcare Corp., alleging that it broke the law by automatically deducting 30 minutes per shift for meal breaks even when employees worked during the breaks. Genesis made a $7,500 settlement offer to Symczyk personally, but admitted no liability to the rest of its workforce. It was an obvious attempt to make the case go away cheaply, and Symczyk declined the offer. Her suit then went to trial, where Genesis put up an odd defense: By allowing its offer to lapse, Genesis said, Symczyk no longer had a personal stake in the case, which was therefore moot and should be tossed out. A district court agreed, as did the Third Circuit Court. Eventually the case made its way to the Supreme Court, and today, Elena Kagan, writing in dissent, made her view plain:

That thrice-asserted view is wrong, wrong, and wrong again…. When a plaintiff rejects such an offer—however good the terms—her interest in the lawsuit remains just what it was be­fore.

….After the offer lapsed, just as before, Symczyk possessed an unsatis­fied claim, which the court could redress by awarding her damages. As long as that remained true, Symczyk’s claim was not moot, and the District Court could not send her away empty-handed. So a friendly suggestion to the Third Circuit: Rethink your mootness-by-unaccepted-offer theo­ry. And a note to all other courts of appeals: Don’t try this at home.

That’s some fine opinion mongering there. But wait. Why was Kagan writing in dissent? Because the conservative majority, for hypertechnical reasons, decided that Symczyk had tacitly accepted that her claim was moot, and based its entire decision on that premise. Kagan again:

But what if that premise is bogus? The decision would turn out to be the most one-off of one-offs, explaining only what (the majority thinks) should happen [] when something that in fact never happens [] is errantly thought to have done so….Feel free to rele­gate the majority’s decision to the furthest reaches of your mind: The situation it addresses should never again arise.

Shazam! Anyone who can write a Supreme Court opinion like that is OK in my book. (Via Eugene Volokh.)


as we head into 2020 is whether politics and media will be a billionaires’ game, or a playing field where the rest of us have a shot. That's what Mother Jones CEO Monika Bauerlein tackles in her annual December column—"Billionaires Are Not the Answer"—about the state of journalism and our plans for the year ahead.

We can't afford to let independent reporting depend on the goodwill of the superrich: Please help Mother Jones build an alternative to oligarchy that is funded by and answerable to its readers. Please join us with a tax-deductible, year-end donation so we can keep going after the big stories without fear, favor, or false equivalency.


as we head into 2020 is whether politics and media will be a billionaires’ game, or a playing field where the rest of us have a shot.

Please read our annual column about the state of journalism and Mother Jones' plans for the year ahead, and help us build an alternative to oligarchy by supporting our people-powered journalism with a year-end gift today.

We Recommend


Sign up for our newsletters

Subscribe and we'll send Mother Jones straight to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.


Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.


We have a new comment system! We are now using Coral, from Vox Media, for comments on all new articles. We'd love your feedback.