THE AMERICA ONE NEWS
Jun 25, 2025  |  
0
 | Remer,MN
Sponsor:  QWIKET 
Sponsor:  QWIKET 
Sponsor:  QWIKET: Elevate your fantasy game! Interactive Sports Knowledge.
Sponsor:  QWIKET: Elevate your fantasy game! Interactive Sports Knowledge and Reasoning Support for Fantasy Sports and Betting Enthusiasts.
back  
topic
Kaelan Deese, Supreme Court Reporter


NextImg:Supreme Court's first opinion of the term dismisses hotel disability 'tester' case

The Supreme Court on Tuesday tossed out a lawsuit between a hotel and a disability rights "tester" who never actually planned to book a room, marking the first decision of the high court's term.

Justices ruled 9-0 on Tuesday that the Acheson Hotels v. Laufer case is moot, a point that was signaled during oral arguments in the case in October.

VENEZUELA VOTES TO CLAIM REGION IN OIL-RICH GUYANA, RAISING FEARS OF CONFLICT

The lawsuit was brought by activist Deborah Laufer, who had filed 600 similar actions across the country, but the case at hand involved a 2020 complaint against an Acheson Hotels property in Maine. Her lawsuit alleged the hotel failed to put information online about whether its rooms are accessible for people with disabilities.

The Biden administration's Justice Department had sided with the hotel, arguing that by only viewing hotel information online, a plaintiff has not suffered injury.

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in a concurrence that the court did not decide the question of whether "plaintiffs like Laufer have standing to bring these claims" because "Laufer voluntarily dismissed her claim in the District Court."

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

"I would answer this important and recurring question, which, as all agree, we have the authority to do. And, I conclude that Laufer lacks standing," Thomas said.

The full court wrote that while the justices are "sensitive" to the hotel's concerns about litigants like Laufer "manipulating this Court’s jurisdiction" through her series of lawsuits, the justices said, "The Court is not convinced that Laufer abandoned her case in an effort to evade the Court’s review."