The Supreme Court decided Spector v. Norwegian Cruise Lines today, reversing the Fifth Circuit’s holding that Title III of the Americans With Disabilities Act does not apply to foreign-flag cruise ships. The decision represents the third victory for the Stanford Law School’s Supreme Court Litigation Clinic this Term. Earlier, the Court ruled that IRAs are exempt property of the estate (Rousey v. Jacoway, argued by Pam Karlan) and that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act recognizes disparate impact claims (Smith v. City of Jackson, which I argued along with Spector). Congratulations to the many Stanford students who worked on the case at the cert. and/or merits stages: William Adams, Eric Feigin, Nat Garrett, Daniel Goldman, Lauren Kofke, Jennifer Thomas, and Sean Tonolli.
Preliminarily, the Court holds without any substantial discussion that Title III of the ADA applies to cruise ships generally. Norwegian had contested that issue, but had placed its principal emphasis on the question whether the ADA applies to foreign-flag vessels.
The holding on that question that the ADA applies is effectively six to three. Justice Kennedy writes a majority opinion on that point joined by Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer. Justice Thomas, in a separate opinion, agrees that “those applications of Title III that do not pertain to internal affairs apply to foreign-flag vessels.†By contrast, Justice Scalia’s dissenting opinion – joined in relevant part by the Chief Justice and Justice O’Connor – would flatly hold that “Title III does not apply to foreign-flag cruise ships.â€
The issue then becomes: To what extent does the ADA apply? Here, the Court is further divided. The controlling opinion of three Justices – Kennedy for a plurality, joined by Stevens and Souter – holds that Title III applies except in all likelihood to the extent the statute would otherwise require “permanent,†“significant,†“structural†changes to the “basic ship design and construction.†That opinion is controlling because it is the narrowest holding: Justice Thomas would not apply the statute to require any structural changes and, as noted, the three Justices dissenting in full would not apply the statute at all. By contrast, two concurring Justices – Justice Ginsburg, joined by Justice Breyer – would hold that Title III applies except to the extent that the statute imposes requirements that conflict with treaty obligations.
So the decision is a significant, although not total, victory for persons with disabilities. Cruise lines that do not want to incur the costs of making their ships fully accessible can take comfort that they may not need to make the most significant, structural changes to their ships that the statute otherwise would require.
CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY