Access to Justice

RELEASE: In Acheson Hotels, LLC v. Laufer Oral Argument, Court Grapples with Civil Rights Testing in the Internet Age and Whether It Should Even Decide the Case at All

 

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court today in Acheson Hotels, LLC v. Laufer, a case in which the Court is considering whether an individual with disabilities has standing to challenge the failure of a place of public accommodation to provide accessibility information on its website even if she lacks any plans to visit that place of public accommodation, Constitutional Accountability Center Appellate Counsel Miriam Becker-Cohen issued the following reaction:

The Court today was primarily focused on whether it should decide this case at all. Ms. Laufer has dismissed the underlying lawsuit, the hotel is no longer owned by the defendant, and the hotel’s website has since been brought into compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act.

When the Court did grapple with the standing issue in the question presented, the Justices seemed to struggle with where to draw a line for tester plaintiffs in the context of the internet. In questioning the attorney for the hotel, Justice Sotomayor asked the right questions, pondering whether there is a meaningful distinction between Ms. Laufer’s actions—visiting a hotel website and encountering discrimination despite never intending to stay at the hotel—and the civil rights activists in the 1960s who visited lunch counters to see whether they would be served, even though they had no interest in eating the restaurant’s food. In fact, as our brief described, the sort of discrimination and dignitary harm that Ms. Laufer suffered has even deeper roots as a cognizable injury: in early American common law, people who suffered the same sort of injury in the face of discrimination by inns and common carriers routinely filed lawsuits premised on that harm.

Fortunately, none of the Justices seemed inclined to overrule an important precedent establishing tester standing, Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman. Thus, if the Court does reach the standing issue in this case, it seems likely that any ruling will be relatively narrow.

##

Resources:

Case page in Acheson Hotels, LLC v. Laufer: https://www.theusconstitution.org/litigation/acheson-hotels-llc-v-laufer/

##

Constitutional Accountability Center is a nonpartisan think tank and public interest law firm dedicated to fulfilling the progressive promise of the Constitution’s text, history, and values. Visit CAC’s website at www.theusconstitution.org.

###

More from Access to Justice

Access to Justice
U.S. Supreme Court

Martin v. United States

In Martin v. United States, the Supreme Court is considering whether the Supremacy Clause overrides the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA)’s express waiver of sovereign immunity when a federal employee’s actions “have some nexus with...
Access to Justice
February 21, 2025

TV (Gray DC): CAC’s Becker-Cohen Joins Gray DC to Discuss Procedural Due Process Claim in Death Row Case

Gray DC
Access to Justice
February 24, 2025

RELEASE: As Justice Jackson Points Out, Seemingly Narrow Death-Penalty Case Would Have “Major Implications” for Standing Jurisprudence if Court Adopted Texas’s Argument

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court this morning in Gutierrez v....
Access to Justice
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates

In United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit is considering whether the qui tam provision of the False Claims Act violates the Appointments...
Access to Justice
U.S. Supreme Court

Gutierrez v. Saenz

In Gutierrez v. Saenz, the Supreme Court is considering whether a federal court, as part of its analysis of a Section 1983 plaintiff’s standing to pursue a procedural due process claim against state officials, must...
Access to Justice
December 4, 2024

Back to the Future: Embracing the Progressive Aims of the Constitution

Host: Constitutional Accountability Center