The Supreme Court dismisses the disability activist’s case as moot
The Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed as questionable a dispute over whether a disabled woman could sue a hotel for violating a federal disability law even though she had no intention of staying there.
The woman, Deborah Laufer, had sued hundreds of hotels whose websites did not indicate whether they had rooms accessible to people with disabilities, as required by a regulation under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Typically, she asked the hotels to admit they had broken the law, fix the problem and pay her legal fees.
“As the sheer volume of lawsuits suggests,” Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote for seven justices, “she is not focusing her efforts on hotels where she has any thoughts of staying, let alone booking a room.” Instead, Laufer systematically searches the Internet for hotels that do not provide accessibility information and sues to enforce compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act.”
The case in court Acheson Hotels v. Laufer, No. 22-429started in September 2020, then Ms. Laufer sued Acheson Hotels, the operator of the Coast Village Inn and Cottages, a small hotel in Wells, Maine. The question the judges wanted to answer was whether “testers” like Ms. Laufer had suffered the kind of direct and concrete injuries that would allow them to sue.
In a surprise twist after the court agreed to hear the case, Ms. Laufer dismissed her lawsuit against the hotel and others, vowed not to file any more similar lawsuits and asked the Supreme Court to dismiss the case as moot. She said allegations of misconduct against one of her lawyers justified the unusual action, adding that the hotel is now under new ownership and its website has been updated to reflect disability accommodations.
The attorney, Tristan Gillespie, allegedly sought $10,000 in legal fees in each case, even though he used “standard complaints,” Judge Barrett wrote, citing court documents. “In addition,” she wrote, “Gillespie funneled six-figure sums to the father of Laufer’s grandchild for research work he never conducted, raising the prospect that Gillespie or Laufer (or both) would get a share of the money.”
Judge Barrett wrote that the court was free to decide whether Ms. Laufer had standing, but that it was prudent to dismiss the case as moot. “We emphasize, however,” she added, “that we may exercise our discretion differently in a future case.”
In a unanimous opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that he would have answered the question the court had sought to review and ruled that Ms. Laufer lacked standing to sue. “I would not reward Laufer’s transparent tactics for circumventing our review,” he wrote.
The Supreme Court has allowed testers to sue under the Fair Housing Act, Judge Thomas acknowledged Havens Realty Corp. to Coleman, a 1982 decision in which a white and a black tester responded to an advertisement about rental apartments. The black woman was told there were no vacancies, while the white man was told there were apartments available.
Ms. Laufer’s case was different, Judge Thomas wrote. “The black tester was personally denied that truthful information, so she was able to press her claim,” he wrote. “Havens Realty therefore has no influence on Laufer’s status as an assessor of compliance with the ADA, which does not provide such a statutory right to information.”
In a second opinion, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson agreed that the case was moot, but said she would not have overturned the appeals court’s ruling in Ms. Laufer’s favor.