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

Galette v. New Jersey Transit Corp. and New Jersey Transit Corp. v. Colt

In Galette v. New Jersey Transit Corporation and New Jersey Transit Corporation v. Colt, the Supreme Court is considering whether state-affiliated corporations have sovereign immunity.
Access to Justice
October 6, 2025

RELEASE: Supreme Court Considers the Scope of a Defendant’s Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court this morning in Villarreal v....
Access to Justice
June 12, 2025

CAC Release: In a Narrow, Unanimous Decision, Supreme Court Gives Victims of Wrong-House Raid Another Chance to Hold the Government Accountable

WASHINGTON, DC – Following today’s decision at the Supreme Court in Martin v. United States,...
Access to Justice
U.S. Supreme Court

Villarreal v. Texas

In Villarreal v. Texas, the Supreme Court is considering whether a defendant’s constitutional right to assistance of counsel is violated by a court order prohibiting the defendant and his counsel from discussing the defendant’s testimony...
Access to Justice
April 29, 2025

Supreme Court signals narrow path forward in mistaken FBI raid case

Washington Examiner
The Supreme Court on Tuesday appeared likely to issue a narrow decision in the case of an...
Access to Justice
April 29, 2025

Martin V. USA tackles wrong-house raid, government accountability

Local News Live
  WASHINGTON (Gray DC) - The government’s argument Tuesday was that they shouldn’t have to...