⚖ Oral Arguments, with Context

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals hears Patterson versus Six Flags Theme Parks. The case arises from an Americans with Disabilities Act lawsuit brought by a deaf patron of a Six Flags amusement park. After a bench trial, the district court entered a permanent injunction requiring Six Flags to provide sign language interpreters and other accommodations. The narrow legal issue on appeal concerns the district court's oversight and monitoring provisions: specifically, whether the judge abused her discretion by imposing a three-year external auditing and monitoring period, during which the plaintiff and his counsel may review Six Flags' compliance records with thirty days' notice. Six Flags argues that the three-year term lacks support in the factual record and that no legal standard authorizes such intrusive ongoing oversight. The appellee, Mr. Patterson, responds that the district court made meticulous factual findings of systemic failures and that the monitoring provisions are reasonable given Six Flags' longstanding lack of attention to its ADA obligations, even decades after the statute took effect.

Patterson v. Six Flags Theme Parks, Inc. (No. 25-2070) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, argued July 8, 2026.