The US Supreme Court on Wednesday heard oral arguments in the case Acheson Hotels, LLC v. Laufer, which questions if a person has the right to sue a business over its disability accessibility information if the individual has no plans of actually going to that business.

Deborah Laufer is a wheelchair and cane user, has visual impairments and has limited use of her hands. She filed suit under the Justice Department’s regulation 28 CFR § 36.302, which requires hotels to provide enough information to an individual during the reservation process to determine whether the hotel meets that person’s accessibility needs. This regulation falls under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) that bars discrimination based on disability in public accommodations, including establishments like hotels, pools and restaurants open to the general public. The Court is tasked with deciding whether Laufer can bring the lawsuit, not the legal question of including disability information on a website.

Adam Unikowsky, counsel for Acheson Hotels, kicked off oral arguments by asserting Laufer lacks standing, or the right to sue, under Article III of the US Constitution because “she has no use for the information she seeks.” Because she does not plan on going to the hotel, Unikowsky reasons, she faces no injury in not obtaining this information. Unikowsky claimed that Laufer has filed suit against hundreds of hotels with these same information allegations.

Justice Elena Kagan raised the point that since the lawsuit was filed in 2020, “[t]he defendant’s website…is now in compliance with the ADA.” Justices Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson both pushed back against deciding this case, citing that Laufer herself even asked the court to dismiss her case only months ago.

Additionally, Unikowsky stated that a person should have the right to sue if they showed they actually intended to visit the hotel, unlike the present case. Unikowsky ended his oral argument by stating, “She just didn’t get the information that she needed to know whether she could access the building, which I just don’t think is an injury.” Jackson rebutted this point, explaining that a person with a disability would still face discrimination because they lack the necessary information to determine if they can stay at a hotel.

The Assistant to the US Solicitor General Erica Rossi argued that the justices should not decide the standing issue in this case, but instead leave it open for further discussion in future cases. Laufer’s counsel, Kelsi Corkran, argued that if the court decides the standing issue, it should recognize that Laufer did suffer harm. Corkran explained, “For over six decades, this court has recognized that discrimination inflicts Article III injury regardless of whether the plaintiff experiences any harm beyond the unequal treatment. We’re talking about a discriminatory denial of information.”

In October 2022, the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held Laufer did have standing to sue.

This week marks the beginning of the Supreme Court’s Fall 2023 term. The court heard its first oral argument on Monday, where it must decide whether a nonviolent drug offender can receive a sentence below the mandatory minimum if they do not meet three disqualifying sentencing factors.