Whether the Americans with Disabilities Act requires state courts to provide reasonable accommodations to disabled litigants to ensure meaningful access to judicial proceedings

No question identified. : SECTION I: INTRODUCTION AND RELIEF REQUESTED Tam an adjudicated disabled litigant under federal law. My trial is scheduled for December 29-31, 2025, and immediate Supreme Court intervention is required because there is no time for further review by lower court. My upcoming trial is inaccessible because the state court has denied me Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accommodations that are necessary for my participation. Despite my documented medical instability and disability, I have been forced to appear from hospital beds, denied effective communication, and denied reasonable modifications. The harm is not hypothetical—it is ongoing and escalating. Without a stay, I will suffer irreparable harm to my health, rights, and ability to access the courts. I respectfully request an emergency stay to prevent further injury and to preserve my federal rights pending appellate review. SECTION II: SUPREME COURT JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT This Emergency Application is properly before the Supreme Court under Rule 23 because the relief sought is not available from any other court. The state trial court, the state appellate court, the federal district court, and the Ninth Circuit have each refused to address the ADA Title IT violations, denied meaningful review, or improperly delegated dispositive decisions to clerks. The Ninth Circuit clerk improperly denied my emergency injunction request without judicial review, which was not procedurally correct under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 27(c), leaving me with no avenue for relief in the lower courts. Originating Case Numbers: ¢ U.S. District Court, Southern District of California: * Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, Family Law Division: 22FL006982C * United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: 25-7491 These facts demonstrate that all lower courts have failed to provide the relief required under federal law, and Supreme Court intervention is necessary. The state trial court, the state appellate court, the federal district court, and the Ninth Circuit have each refused to address the ADA Title II violations, denied meaningful review, or improperly delegated dispositive decisions to clerks. The Ninth Circuit clerk improperly denied my emergency injunction request without judicial review, which was not procedurally correct under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 27(c), leaving me with no avenue for relief in the lower courts. Extraordinary circumstances exist because I face imminent, irreparable harm from an ADAviolating trial, and no court below has applied controlling Supreme Court precedent, including Tennessee v. Lane, United States v. Georgia, and Ex parte Young. Supreme Court intervention is necessary to prevent ongoing violations of federal law and to preserve my constitutional and statutory rights. This satisfies Supreme Court Rule 23: e The relief is not available from any other court: fe} ° The state trial court denied ADA accommodations. The state appellate court denied the ADA mandate without addressing ADA law. The federal district court dismissed the ADA claims as “moot.” The Ninth Circuit clerk denied my emergency motion without judicial review. The Ninth Circuit has refused to review the ADA issues. « Ihave attached the required orders: ° fe} fe} ° The state trial court order The state appellate court denial The federal district court dismissal The Ninth Circuit clerk denial e Extraordinary circumstances: ° ce} ADA violations across all levels Denial of captioning o Denial of access to the record o Denial of medical-based continuances o Forced participation from hospital beds o Systemic misuse of Younger o Systemic misuse of Eleventh Amendment immunity o Suppression of Temporary Restraining Orders (TRO) o Ninth Circuit clerk denying emergency relief o No court addressing ADA Title IT SECTION III: STANDARD FOR A STAY PENDING APPEAL & IRREPARABLE HARM Standard for a Stay Pending Appeal Courts generally consider four