The Supreme Court’s recent examination of the 303 Creative case, which conferred businesses with the right to discriminate against protected groups in the name of the First Amendment, exemplifies the court’s complex relationship with the concept of standing. The case, which revolved around a non-existent homosexual couple trying to purchase a wedding cake, ultimately resulted in a ruling from the court, signifying a significant deviation from the traditional requirement of injury for a case to have standing. The ruling, which had Justice Kavanaugh’s approval, has triggered speculation over an alteration in Kavanaugh’s perception of standing doctrine.
A similar issue of standing has come up in a recent case against discriminatory hotels. A lower court’s ruling had permitted a Florida woman to file a suit against Acheson Hotels in Maine, despite her having no plans of staying at any of the firm’s hotels. The plaintiff, who uses a wheelchair and is visually impaired, is a prominent tester of hotel adherence to the provisions of the ADA. During the proceedings, Justice Kavanaugh cast doubt over her personal experience of the said discrimination.
The notion that the case was doomed wasn’t exclusive to Justice Kavanaugh. Justices Alito and Kagan also indicated their belief that the case held little promise. Despite the case’s apparent lack of merit, its consideration by the Supreme Court is indicative of its potential to impact rights enforcement through so-called “test” cases. If the Justices were to return a ruling against the plaintiff, it might set a disruptive precedent for future civil rights compliance cases.
As Vox outlines, the potential consequences of this case could extend well beyond the plaintiff herself. In this context, the debate around courtroom transparency is salient. Why was this evidently flawed case taken up by the apex court of the land in the first place? Were there behind-the-scenes factors that encouraged such a decision? These are important concerns, considering the significant resources that were invested in the promotion and publicizing of the 303 Creative case and its protagonists.
While the processes influencing the justices’ case selection aren’t transparent, this episode underscores the importance of critically examining the Supreme Court’s decision-making processes, perhaps even requiring the justices to explain their choices.