Law Spotlight: Acheson v. Laufer Infographic

In December 2023, The Supreme Court of the United States heard Acheson v. Laufer regarding whether ADA ‘testers’ can ensure public entities’ comply with disability and civil rights laws. To read more about this case, check out Disability Activists Closely Watch SCOTUS Case and ADA Supreme Court Case Update: Acheson v. Laufer.

Blue infographic: Acheson v. Laufer
Image of a hotel. Text reads: About the Case: Deborah Laugher, a disabled woman filed a lawsuit against Acheson Hotels. In this lawsuit, Laufer said that the hotel website was not accessible under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). 
Image of the Supreme Court. Text reads: Issue of the case: whether testers can ensure public entitities comply with disability and civil rights laws and also have standing to Sui an establishment for violating the ADA, despite not intending to personally visit the establishment. 
Image of a group of people in different shades of pink. Text: What are Testers? Testers are individuals that judge the accessibility of a website or location to make sure it meets ADA regulations. Testers are preferred by many disability advocates due to time constraints. Image of gavel. text: SCOTUS Holding: In December 2023, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) ruled that the case was moot. Fiding a case moot means that the case no longer required a decision because a solution was found. Image of a judge with gavel in hand. Text: Meaning of Ruling: lower courts, not SCOTUS, will decide if people can be testers for the ADA or not. This means that some states and circuits may allow testers for the ADA, while others will not. 
Image of the scales of justice. text: affect of Ruling: the positive impact is that the SCOTUS decision did not change the ADA in any way. The negative impact is that it still leaves the question of whether we can have testers for compliance with the ADA or not. 
The National Center for Disability, Equity, and Intersectionality
www.Thinkequitable.com

Understanding Intellectual Disability

A little over a month ago, I took on the task of trying to write a string of articles to help define intellectual disability (ID). The approach I chose would be to: first, explain what ID is, second, discuss the importance of ID awareness and pride, and third, discuss the stigma around ID. However, this task proved to be far from simple. I started my research by looking at what ID is and how to define it. As I began researching, I realized that there is a lot of information out there specifically related to defining ID. Everything I read provided a slightly different definition for ID that ultimately made it harder to define. Each article highlighted different aspects of ID. For example, some articles focused heavily on intelligence quotient (IQ) tests while others stated that IQ tests should not be the determinate for whether an individual has an intellectual disability. I began questioning if trying to define ID was the best starting point and ultimately decided to change my path and began researching ID awareness.

Read more: Understanding Intellectual Disability

It became immediately clear that while a plethora of information existed around defining ID, there was seemingly nothing related to ID awareness. I had to expand my search. I hoped that looking at  the more expansive disability awareness articles would mention ID. After trying many search methods, I found one article that discussed the importance of ID awareness. However, even though the article emphasized the importance of raising awareness and creating a general understanding for what ID is, the majority of the article focused on the stigma and negative connotation surrounding intellectual disability. 

As I started writing the awareness article, it became clear to me that in order to discuss raising awareness about ID, I had to discuss the stigma associated with it. I also realized that in order to discuss raising awareness and the stigma associated with ID, I first had to define what ID was. The cycle of trying to figure out where to begin continued for a while. I could not figure out a clear way to write about ID because there was too much or too little information available. In addition, the information that was available was often confusing to understand or did not align with what other medical professionals were saying.

In my research, I would find doctors and researchers defining ID and requiring assessments to diagnose while others would not. The gap of information–and the variance in the tiny bit available–makes it all easily misconstrued. This issue only adds to the negative connotation surrounding ID. More people with ID need to speak out about their experiences and what intellectual disability is. In my search, I came across a few TED Talks given by people who have ID. In their talks, they discussed what it is like having an ID, how it defines them, and resources they utilize to raise awareness and advocate for ID as a whole.

The TED Talks provide helpful information about ID, but there is still an incredible need for additional resources that clearly explain what ID is. As a non-disabled special education attorney, being able to explain what ID is to parents and how it can impact their child in an academic setting is extremely important. Sometimes a child will receive a diagnosis of ID and the parents don’t know what that means for their child moving forward. With the resources currently available, it could be even more confusing for parents to understand what ID is. Being able to define ID in a clear way is the starting point for making ID research more accessible to everyone. Once there is a clear definition, individuals and organizations can expand upon diagnosing ID, the stigma surrounding ID, and raising awareness about ID. This can only occur if people understand what ID is and then can easily navigate resources to find subsets within ID that they want to learn more about. 

Kendall Murphy is a staff attorney at Project HEAL. Kendall received a bachelor’s degree in psychology from The Catholic University of America. She went on to receive her Juris Doctor from Elon University School of Law. While in law school, Kendall served as a Project HEAL trainee and as an intern for Disability Rights Maryland. She also worked as a research assistant at Elon Law researching law regarding students with specific learning disabilities and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Prior to law school, Kendall worked as a behavioral therapist for students with autism in the District of Columbia Public Schools.

  1.  IQ and Intellectual Disability: Diagnosis and Support 
  2.  https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7082244/#sec2

ADA Supreme Court Case Update: Acheson v. Laufer

December 2023 Update on ADA Supreme Court Case:
The Supreme Court of the United States ruled the Acheson v. Laufer case moot. This case was in regards to the standing of ADA Testers. Below you will find a plain language explanation of the case and the decision of the Supreme Court. You can find more information and background on this specific case on our blog: Disability Law Spotlight: Acheson v. Laufer
ADA Supreme Court Case
Latest News: The Supreme Court Reaches A Decision on ADA Case. Updated: December 6, 2023
The Supreme Court of the United States (The Supreme Court) recently heard the case of Acheson v Laufer. 
In this case, Deborah Laufer (known as Laufer), a disabled woman, filed a lawsuit against Acheson Hotels (known as Acheson). In this lawsuit, Laufer said that the hotel website was not accessible under the American with Disabilities Act (ADA).
Acheson argued that Ms. Laufer did not have the right, or standing, to bring them to court because she never intended to visit the hotel. They said she was not injured because of the lack of accessibility on the website and was only ‘testing’ the website for compliance.
In this instance, for Acheson Hotels to be in compliance with the ADA, the hotel would need to include information on their website about the availability of accessible rooms, among other things. 
Many disability activists and allies were worried that the Supreme Court would make a decision that would weaken the ADA. Specifically, activists were concerned that the Supreme Court would find that disabled people would start suing companies for not being accessible, even though they did not intend to visit those companies. Most disability activists and allies know that people with disabilities do not have the time, money, or ability to sue every inaccessible company.
The Supreme Court made a decision on Tuesday, December 5, 2023 that 
this case was moot. 
When a court says a case is ‘moot’ that means that the case no longer requires a decision because a solution has been found for the issue.
ADA Supreme Court Case: In this case, Laufer withdrew the lawsuit that led to this case, and stated that she would not file another like this in the future. The Supreme Court responded with deciding that the case was “moot” because there were no more issues in the case that required a decision from them. 

The Supreme Court of the United States consists of 9 justices. Justices is another word for judges that work for the highest court in the United States. All 9 Justices agreed on the decision in this case.
This decision has both positives and negative impacts for the disability community. 
The positive impact is that The Supreme Court decision did not change the ADA in any way. 
The negative impact is that it still leaves the question of whether we can have “testers” for compliance with the ADA or not. 
Testers are individuals that judge the accessibility of a website or location to make sure it meets ADA regulations. Many disability advocates say they want to have ADA testers because they do not have time to make sure websites and spaces are accessible each time they intend to travel. They would prefer that someone else did that for them. 
This decision also means that lower courts, not the Supreme Court in this case, will decide if people can be testers for the ADA or not. This means that some states and circuits (or regions) may allow testers for the ADA and some will not. For example, Idaho does not allow ADA testers, but Connecticut does.
ADA Supreme Court Case Update

For a complete list of which districts allow ADA testers and which do not, click here.

Want to learn about the National Center for Disability, Equity and Intersectionality? Learn more about our work here.