In a recent legal development, the Supreme Court chose not to resolve a case revolving around the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). At the heart of this decision was the role of a self-appointed “tester,” Deborah Laufer. This article aims to provide a thorough examination of the case, shedding light on its intricacies, implications, and the arguments that unfolded before the highest court in the land.
The Moot Decision:
The Supreme Court declared the case moot, marking a crucial juncture in the legal journey surrounding ADA compliance. Deborah Laufer, the plaintiff, voluntarily dismissed her lawsuit, leading to the court’s decision. The focal point was the ADA rules requiring hotels to include accessibility information on their websites, a requirement the Maine hotel, operated by Acheson Hotels, addressed during the litigation process before ultimately changing ownership.
Legal Insights from Justice Amy Coney Barrett:
In her role as the author of the majority opinion, Justice Amy Coney Barrett delved into the nuances of the case. Acknowledging Acheson’s concerns about potential manipulation of the court’s jurisdiction, Barrett emphasized that Laufer’s dismissal was not an attempt to evade the court’s review.
“We are sensitive to Acheson’s concern about litigants manipulating the jurisdiction of this Court. We are not convinced, however, that Laufer abandoned her case in an effort to evade our review,” Barrett wrote.
Concurring Opinions on ADA:
While the judgment was unanimous, Justices Clarence Thomas and Ketanji Brown Jackson offered concurring opinions with distinct perspectives. Thomas delved into the issue of legal standing, asserting that the plaintiff shouldn’t have been able to bring the suit in the first place. Jackson reiterated her concerns about when the court should vacate lower-court rulings when a case becomes moot on appeal.
Acheson’s Argument and Clarity for Future Cases:
Acheson’s legal argument centered around Laufer’s purported lack of legal standing due to her non-intent to stay at the hotel. During oral arguments, the justices not only deliberated on the standing question but also contemplated whether addressing the matter was necessary.
Adam Unikowsky, representing Acheson, urged the justices to issue a ruling on the broader issue. This, he argued, would provide much-needed clarity on the legal standing of “testers” in ADA cases, especially given the existing split among lower courts.
Future Implications:
In concluding the Laufer case, the Supreme Court decision raises broader questions about the legal standing of ADA “testers.” While specific to this case, the implications extend beyond, offering potential considerations for future disputes. The decision, though declaring the case moot, prompts reflection on the delicate balance between litigants’ actions and the court’s jurisdiction.
