Today, the U.S. Supreme Court released its decision in the Acheson Hotels, LLC v. Laufer case. The case was dismissed as moot.
The question before the Court was whether testers – disabled people who investigate compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) – have the ability to sue businesses for discrimination when their rights under that law are violated. In August 2023, the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund (DREDF) and seventeen leading disability organizations, filed a “friend-of-the-court” brief in the case. Oral argument was heard in the case on October 4, 2023.
DREDF believes the Court was correct in disposing of the Acheson Hotels, LLC v. Laufer case on mootness grounds. As Justice Kagan observed, the case was “dead, dead, dead in all the ways that something can be dead,” by the time of oral argument. It would have been wrong for the Court to use this case to establish such an important precedent.
Justice Thomas concurred in the judgment, but unlike the majority, believed the tester standing issue should have been addressed. Accordingly, he wrote a concurring opinion on that issue, concluding that Ms. Laufer lacks standing. Disappointing, and in DREDF’s view, incorrect. Justice Thomas overlooked years of legal decisions saying that a person’s motive should not be considered when deciding whether they have the right to sue in court. He also failed to recognize prior legal decisions holding that dignitary harms resulting from unequal treatment and discrimination give people the right to sue.
DREDF is frustrated with how ADA plaintiffs like Ms. Laufer were characterized by Justice Thomas. Outdated terms like “wheelchair bound” have no place in the Court’s opinions. It was also unfair to characterize ADA plaintiffs as manipulative, greedy, and aggressive while ignoring the widespread and ongoing noncompliance of businesses with accessibility standards. This mischaracterization is concerning and contributes to false narratives about ADA litigation.
Private lawsuits, including those initiated by testers, remain a crucial support to the federal government’s efforts in enforcing Title III of the ADA. Relying solely on government enforcement is not enough. The legislative history of the ADA confirms that Congress intended for private litigants to play a proactive role in bringing the ADA’s still-unfulfilled promise closer to fruition, and those who take on the burden of such enforcement in good faith, play an important role in the disability rights movement.