Acheson Hotels, LLC, Petitioner v. Deborah Laufer
The first case on the docket of the Supreme Court is case number 22-429. In this case, Acheson Hotels argued that Laufer lacked standing to sue because she was only a “tester” and, as such, had no intention of visiting the hotel. The petitioner further maintained that Deborah Laufer did not suffer any direct harm – he did not have the right to bring a lawsuit against him.
On their part, ACLU, Legal Defense, and other interested parties argued that civil rights testers such as Laufer suffer dignitary harm. This means they are standing to sue because this is a legitimate injury. They further contended that the lack of information on hotel websites hindered the ability of people living with disabilities to make informed decisions, thus denying them equal access to public accommodations.
A closer look at this case makes it clear that it raises a fundamental question about the interpretation of standing in civil rights lawsuits. I believe the ACLU and other organizations are spot on in their assertion that dignitary harm is a form of injury. Discrimination can occur without physical harm but affects an individual’s dignity and rights. By upholding the tester’s statement, the court would be in a better position to enforce civil rights laws and ensure businesses are accountable for providing accessible accommodations. This case is critical in promoting inclusivity and equal access for all citizens.
Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP (No. 22-807)
The arguments in this case revolve around the redistricting plan enacted by the South Carolina legislature after the 2020 census. The appellants argued that the district court erroneously analyzed their intent. More specifically, they stated that the court failed to separate race from politics. In the end, it wrongly found racial predominance in districting decisions, allegedly based on election data as opposed to racial targets.
From my point of view, redistricting cases play an essential role in ensuring fair representation and preventing gerrymandering, which, if left unchecked, undermines the democratic process. Therefore, the Supreme Court should examine the district court’s decision keenly. In doing so, the Court must endeavor to determine whether race was an overriding factor in districting decisions. Evidence-based guidelines should be implemented to help maintain the integrity of electoral processes by ensuring every vote is respected and not diluted by discriminatory practices.
Corner Post, Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (No. 22-1008)
In this case, the Corner Post challenged the Federal Reserve Board’s regulation of a 21-cent fee for processing by arguing that the fee was not proportional to the actual cost incurred by the banks. On its part, the government contended that the case was time-barred, arguing that the six-year clock for legal challenges started in 2011 upon issuing the regulation. However, the question before the Supreme Court is whether the case was properly dismissed because of the statute of limitations.
This case is crucial since it focuses on the applications of administrative law and the statute of limitations. The overriding question is whether the statute should commence when the regulation was first issued or when Corner Post was injured. The traditional understanding of the legal system is that the starting point for such limitations is the actual date of the injury. This approach would ensure businesses, including Corner Post, to challenge regulations that directly affect them.
Loading...
