The Supreme Court recently dismissed a notable ”civil rights tester” case. The plaintiff, self-proclaimed ”civil rights tester” Deborah Laufer, voluntarily dismissed her lawsuit in the lower court, prompting the Supreme Court to determine that the case was no longer a live issue, thus deeming it moot. In the dismissed case, Laufer aimed to sue a hotel she never intended to visit for failing to provide adequate accessibility information on their website in line with the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
From Florida and living with multiple sclerosis and vision impairments, Laufer lodged her case against Acheson Hotels, previously the operators of an inn situated in Maine. Her allegations highlighted a perceived violation of the ADA’s “reservation rule” by the inn. The reservation rule compels hotels to adequately describe accessibility provision on their websites. Such transparency enables individuals with disabilities to sufficiently discern whether the hotel’s facilities meet their needs.
As the case made its way to the Supreme Court, the legal basis for Laufer’s lawsuit surfaced as the prevailing question. Not only had Laufer no intention of visiting the inn, but she also requested the dismissal of her case and the invalidation of the US Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit’s favoring judgement in July ahead of the Supreme Court hearing. Further complication arose as Laufer dismissed all her cases in the lower court, the direct result of the suspension of one of her attorneys from the practice of law in Maryland’s federal courts on account of defrauding hotels in other analogous cases.
In response to the case’s developments, Acheson Hotels urged the justices to proceed with the case and categorically deny Laufer’s legal right to sue. The hotel’s representation cautioned that by dismissing the case at this stage, the judiciary could inadvertently support a legal strategy exploiting large scale settlements and calculated abandonment of cases that may generate unfavorable precedent.
The Supreme Court, however, granted Laufer’s request to dismiss the case. Emphasizing her voluntary dismissal of pending ADA cases post her attorney’s sanction in the lower court and her commitment not to file any further lawsuits, the court sided with Laufer on the ground of mootness. Justice Clarence Thomas diverged in opinion, suggesting the case should have been dismissed not for mootness but rather due to Laufer’s lack of the legal right to sue. He underscored Laufer’s absence of intent to use the hotel’s service, which essentially nullify her legal interest in the information mandated by the Reservation Rule.
While Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson agreed with the majority on the case’s mootness, she challenged the court’s practice, known as the Munsingwear vacatur, of automatically vacating the lower court’s judgement. She suggested that a party should demonstrate harm beyond dissatisfaction with the lower court’s interpretation of the law before demanding the lower court’s decision be invalidated.
Full details of the court’s findings can be found in the court’s opinion, and for further reading, see full coverage and analysis by Amy Howe on SCOTUSblog.