Supreme Court and Injury under the Law

Acheson Hotels, LLC v. Laufer

Deborah Laufer was a frequent litigant with physical disabilities and vision impairments, who brought a lawsuit against Acheson Hotels, alleging that Acheson Hotels failed to publish necessary information about their accessibility features on their website, which is a requirement under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The district court dismissed the lawsuit on the grounds that Laufer lacked standing since she had no intention to visit the hotel and, therefore, suffered no injury from the lack of information. However, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reversed this decision, asserting that Laufer’s lack of intent to book a room did not negate the fact of injury.

The primary legal issue at stake was whether an ADA “tester” has Article III standing to challenge a hotel’s failure to provide accessibility information on its website, even if they have no plans to visit the hotel.

The arguments presented for Laufer centered on the interpretation of the ADA and whether the failure to provide accessibility information constituted an injury that could grant standing. Laufer’s legal team contended that the lack of information was in itself a sufficient injury under the ADA, regardless of her intentions to visit the hotel.

The arguments for Acheson hotels centered on the notion that since Laufer had no plans to visit the hotel, she could not claim an injury. The defense stated that an abstract injury or a hypothetical grievance did not meet the standing requirements under Article III.

During oral arguments, the justices focused on the broader implications of standing under Article III. Justice Amy Coney Barrett authored the majority opinion, and questioned the concreteness of the injury claimed by Laufer. The lawyers for Laufer aimed to persuade the justices by emphasizing the broader purpose of the ADA being to guarantee accessible information for all, noting that any denial of this information was inherently injurious. In contrast, Acheson Hotels’ counsel argued that the has to be an actual or imminent injury to establish standing, and the counsel pointed to previous rulings to support their argument.

The justices probed deeply into the nature of injury and the application of Article III standing in different ways. Justice Barrett, for example, questioned whether a mere denial of information could be considered an injury without a plan to use the information. Justice Thomas expressed concerns about the impact of granting standing in such cases due to the potential for an overload of similar lawsuits. Justices Kagan and Sotomayer asked about the intentions of the ADA in an effort to counterbalance the strict interpretation of standing.

The Supreme Court\\\\\\\'s decision to vacate the case as moot due to Laufer voluntarily dismissing her pending suits. Nonetheless, the issue of standing in ADA-related cases remains. The decision not to address the standing issue left unresolved a circuit split, which means the potential for a continuation of uncertainty will remain with possible inconsistent rulings in lower courts. The implications of this decision could be serious, as it could influence the future trajectory of ADA litigation and the scope of who can claim an injury under the act.