Acheson Hotels, LLC v. Laufer

-

For my first blog post I am going to examine one of the latest cases SCOTUS ruled on: Acheson Hotels, LLC v. Laufer.

Unbiased Case Analysis:

Deborah Laufer is a disabled woman who checks hotel websites to see if they provide accessibility information required under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). She sued Acheson Hotels after discovering one of their hotel websites failed to provide accessibility information. The district court dismissed her case since she did not plan to visit the hotel. Therefore, she would suffer no injury from the hotel’s lack of accessibility information. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reversed the district court’s decision determining that a lack of intent to visit the hotel did not excuse Laufer from injury. The Supreme Court of the United States agreed to hear the case and rule on it.

The Court unanimously voted to vacate the case. The Court found the case to be moot which means it has lost its relevance which no longer necessitates the Court to rule on it. Laufer’s lawyer received accusations of misconduct which promoted her to drop the case. She asked if SCOTUS would also dismiss her case. Acheson no longer owed the hotel under scrutiny. The hotel also updated its website to comply with the ADA. Therefore, the Court found the case moot and vacated it.

Acheson Hotels’ lawyer still wanted the case to be heard by the Court since it would provide guidance for future cases concerning ADA “testers.” However, the Court felt it would not be appropriate to give an important ruling on a case that is “dead as a doornail” as Justice Elena Kagan put it. They would rather rule on a case with the same issue but not moot.

Personal Perspective:

Overall, I agree with the Court’s choice to vacate the case. Although the lower courts do need more guidance in how to handle these cases, it would be better for SCOTUS to create guidance from a case that is relevant. ADA “testers” such as Laufer will continue to bring cases to the lower courts against various hotels and businesses. Therefore, SCOTUS will not have to wait long to hear a case with a similar issue.

Media Critique and Analysis:

The case received modest media coverage from a variety of outlets. It received a good amount of attention while the case was initially brought before SCOTUS. However, the verdict did not make the rounds in the media due to its anticlimactic nature. Media outlets presented the case either in favor of the ADA and Laufer or attempted to paint Laufer as a villain. However, it was not hard to find quality and reliable information on the case.

Sources:

Acheson Hotels, LLC v. Laufer | Oyez

Supreme Court dismisses hotel disability rights case as moot in first decision of term | The Independent

Supreme Court Drops Case On Disability Rights | HuffPost Latest News

Comments

  1. Lin LJanuary 16, 2024 at 5:43 PM

    I am also a fan of reading opinions from SCOTUS. In fact, I peruse the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, the Georgia Supreme Court, local superior courts, etc. There is a ton of good information published by the courts. This is something I started as an investigator and kept at it even after leaving law enforcement. I look forward forward to following your blog and discovering some very interesting opinions.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College

-
Image
  Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College Unbiased case analysis:             Harvard College uses an admissions process that considers the race of applicants to determine whether they should be accepted or not. This is a common practice for many colleges in the United States. Harvard College was sued by Students for Fair Admissions over their use of affirmative action. Affirmative action is simply an action that helps specific demographic groups due to the United States’ history of discrimination. A district court ruled in favor of Harvard and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Frist Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The case was eventually brought before the Supreme Court. It was initially going to be consolidated with another case, but the Court chose to hear it individually.             The Court ruled 6-2 in favor of ...
Read more

Biden v. Nebraska

-
Image
Unbiased Case Analysis:             During his presidential run Joe Biden promised to cancel up to $10,000 of federal student loan debt per borrower. He kept his word and used executive action to enact his promise. Nebraska and five other states challenged Biden and his forgiveness program. They argued on the grounds that it violated the separation of powers and the Administrative Procedure Act. The district court and U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit dismissed the case. The Supreme Court stepped in to decide on it.             The Court decided 6-3 in favor of Nebraska. The Court found that the Secretary of education does not authority under the HEROES Act “…to establish a student loan forgiveness program that will cancel roughly $430 billion in dept principal and affect nearly all borrowers.” Most of the justices cited the major questions doctrine as their reaso...
Read more