Pennsylvania, et al. v. Jose Montanez, et al.

The Third Circuit held that the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is vicariously liable for violations of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act committed by third-party contractors providing medical services to inmates in state prisons. That holding deepened an acknowledged circuit split, and is inconsistent with this Court’s precedents. But no party raised the issue of derivative liability at any point during this litigation. Instead, one week before argument, the Third Circuit sua sponte identified that unraised issue and inserted it into the case by requiring the parties to address it. That egregious violation of the party presentation principle warrants summary reversal under United States v. Sineneng-Smith, 590 U.S. 371 (2020), and Clark v. Sweeney, 607 U.S. 7 (2025) (per curiam). The questions presented are:

1. Did the Court of Appeals violate the party presentation principle by sua sponte inserting the derivative liability issue into the case?

2. Are public entities and recipients of federal funding vicariously liable for Title II and Section 504 violations committed by third-party contractors?