Page:Acheson Hotels, LLC v. Laufer.pdf/22

22, Acheson needs to rely on something more than its own abject disappointment.

The parties in this case have not provided any equitable basis for vacatur of the Court of Appeals’ judgment, nor has the majority described any, beyond its reference to the Court’s past practices and a citation to Munsingwear. See. For the reasons explained above, I would ordinarily not agree to the imposition of a vacatur remedy that was not fully discussed, much less established. But I recognize that this Court’s vacatur ruling is consistent with our “established practice” of vacating the judgment of the Court of Appeals below “when mootness occurs through … the unilateral action of the party who prevailed in the lower court.” Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U. S. 43, 70–71 (1997) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Garza, 584 U. S., at 729;, and. I concur in the judgment on the basis of that precedent, despite my own views of this practice, because respondent’s voluntary dismissal is the sort of “unilateral action” that we have previously deemed adequate for vacatur.