Whether a federal court may certify a class action under Rule 23 when some class members lack Article III standing due to absence of concrete injury in a disparate-impact claim

No question identified. : TO THE HONORABLE BRETT KAVANAUGH, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT OFTHE UNITED STATES AND CIRCUIT JUSTICE FOR THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT: Under this Court’s Rule 13.5, applicant City of Cleveland, Ohio, respectfully requests a 60-day extension of time, to and including December 8, 2025, within which to file a petition for a writ of certiorari to review the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. The Sixth Circuit entered its judgment on June 9, 2025, App., infra, 1a, and denied applicant’s timely petition for rehearing on July 11, 2025, id. at 19a. Unless extended, the time within which to file a petition for awrit of certiorari will expire on October 9, 2025. The jurisdiction of this Court would be invoked under 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1). Counsel for Albert Pickett, et al. does not oppose the requested extension. 1. This case implicates important legal issues concerning whether a federal court may certify a class action that contains members who claim no Article Il injury apart from being subjected to a policy they allege has a disparate racial impact in violation of a federal statute (here, the Fair Housing Act (FHA), 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq.). Those issues relate to two cases in which this Court recently granted but dismissed writs of certiorari, Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings v. Davis, 605 U.S. 327 (2025) (LabCorp) (whether courts may certify classes with members who lack standing); Acheson Hotels, LLC v. Laufler, 601 U.S. 1, 4-5 (2023) (whether testers have standing to bring ADA claims of unequal access absent concrete injury), as well as this Court’s decision in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U.S. 413 (2021). a. The City of Cleveland provides water services to approximately 1.5 million customers in Cuyahoga County, Ohio, through its Department of Public Utilities, Division of Water (“Cleveland Water”). Like virtually all major municipalities’ water departments, Cleveland Water charges its customers for water services. These charges are the sole source of revenue for Cleveland Water and are used to support Cleveland Water’s operations, maintenance, and capital projects. Not all customers pay their bills on time. Like many other municipalities, Cleveland Water places “water liens” on the properties of customers who have delinquent water bills. Cleveland Water does so only if the customer falls behind on a water bill for at least 180 days and owes an account balance of $300 or more; Cleveland Water has not placed liens on residential properties since at least 2020. b. Respondents filed this putative class action against the City, alleging that its water-lien policy disproportionately harms black homeowners in Cuyahoga County and violates the FHA, 42 U.S.C. § 3604. Respondents do not claim that the City knows the race of its customers when it assesses water liens, much less that the City intentionally discriminates based on race. Instead, they allege that the City’s race-neutral water-lien policy results in a disproportionate number of liens placed on properties in majority-black neighborhoods. Respondents also do not claim that mere placement of a water lien causes economic injury to customers. Although a water lien may ultimately lead Cuyahoga County or mortgage holders to impose penalties, interest, and eventual foreclosure, customers may pay their account balance before any such penalties are assessed,and many do so. Thus,many customers whose properties are subjected to a water lien never suffer any economic injury. c. Respondents moved to certify a class of all black homeowners in Cuyahoga County who have had a water lien assessed against their property by Cleveland Water. The City opposed certification on the grounds (inter alia) that up to 20% of putative class members have suffered no economic injury and therefore lack standing. The district court granted the motion and certified a class. App., infra, 5a. The Sixth Ci