Whether Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski merits summarily granting the petition, vacating the judgment, and remanding to determine whether the Ninth Circuit's holding is inconsistent with this Court's intervening precedent

QUESTION PRESENTED This action originated from a_ threatened lawsuit under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Because the threatened suit involved claims that were not legally cognizable, Expensify filed an action for declaratory judgment seeking a declaration of nonliability and nominal damages. However, the defendants executed waivers of their claims and moved to dismiss, arguing that the case was now moot. The district court agreed, despite Expensify’s still-live claim for nominal damages and the threat of Respondent’s counsel suing Expensify on behalf of other class representatives, and dismissed the action. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, relying on Bayer v. Neiman Marcus Grp. Inc., 861 F.3d 853 (9th Cir. 2017), holding that Expensify’s claims did not implicate its “dignitary interests” or “important rights,” and therefore nominal damages were unavailable. However, after the Ninth Circuit entered judgment, this Court decided Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski, 141 S. Ct. 792 (2021), holding that every violation of a right entitles the injured party to nominal damages. (No. 17,322) The question presented is whether Uzuegbunam merits summarily granting the petition, vacating the judgment, and remanding to determine whether the Ninth Circuit’s holding, which took a narrow view of the availability of nominal damages, is inconsistent with this Court’s intervening precedent, which took a substantially broader view of nominal damages. i