The US Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments in the case of Acheson Hotels, LLC v. Laufer. This case seeks clarity on the right of an individual to lodge a suit against a business for failing to provide disability accessibility information, even when the person has no immediate intention of visiting that business. The case is available in full detail here.
Deborah Laufer, who is a wheelchair and cane user with visual impairments and limited use of her hands, brought the suit against Acheson Hotels under the Justice Department’s regulation 28 CFR § 36.302. The law mandates hotels to sufficiently divulge information to a potential visitor during the reservation process, helping them to establish if the hotel can cater to their accessibility needs. It is under the purview of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the key legislation prohibiting discrimination based on disability in public accommodations.
The attorney for Acheson Hotels, Adam Unikowsky, contended that Laufer doesn’t possess the legal standing to sue as per Article III of the US Constitution because she doesn’t plan to stay at the hotel. Thus, in his opinion, she doesn’t stand to lose from the lack of this information.
Interestingly, since the suit was filed in 2020, the defendant’s website has since updated and now complies with the ADA, as highlighted by Justice Elena Kagan. Both Justice Kagan and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson showed reticence in deciding on this case when noting that Laufer had recently asked the court to dismiss her case.
However, Erica Rossi, the Assistant to the US Solicitor General, advocated leaving the standing issue undetermined for future case considerations. Meanwhile, Kelsi Corkran, Laufer’s counsel, argued that Laufer did experience harm and emphasized the importance of acknowledging discriminatory denial of information.
Last year, the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit concurred with Laufer, ruling that she did have standing to sue. Here is the detailed judgment.
As the Supreme Court navigates its Fall 2023 term, there are other noteworthy cases under consideration, including a case deliberating if a nonviolent drug offender can receive a sentence beneath the mandatory minimum without meeting three disqualifying sentencing factors.
For more comprehensive coverage of this case and the Supreme Court’s proceedings, you can find further reading here.