This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
The case concerns whether Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) applies to foreign‑flagged cruise ships that dock in United States ports.
According to Petitioners, petitioners are American citizens who purchased cruise tickets in the United States and allege discrimination by Norwegian Cruise Line Ltd., a U.S.-based company, both on land and in U.S. waters.
According to Mr. Frederick, respondent argues that the issue is one of congressional intent rather than congressional power.
According to Gregory G. Garre, amicus briefs argue that applying the ADA extraterritorially could create international conflict.
Background and question before the Court
The central legal question is whether Title III of the ADA was intended by Congress to apply extraterritorially to foreign‑flagged vessels.
What each side argues
Petitioners
According to Petitioners, petitioners assert that they are U.S. citizens who bought tickets in the United States and were subjected to discrimination by the respondent.
According to Mr. Goldstein, petitioners argue that because the accommodation was purchased in the United States, the ADA should cover the cruise.
Respondent
According to Mr. Frederick, respondent maintains that the case is about congressional intent, not congressional power.
Amicus – United States
According to David B. Salmons, the United States, as amicus, argues that Title III of the ADA was not intended to apply extraterritorially.
According to David B. Salmons, the amicus defines commerce broadly to include travel between the United States and foreign countries.
Amicus – The Bahamas
According to Gregory G. Garre, the Bahamas, as amicus, argues that applying the ADA to foreign‑flagged vessels would cause international discord and conflict.
What happened at oral argument
Justice O'Connor asked whether other countries, such as those in the EU, have applied their disability laws to cruise ships that dock in their courts.
According to Justice Scalia, justice Scalia questioned whether Congress intended the ADA to apply in this context.
Justice Stevens asked about the parties’ positions on the issue.
According to Justice Souter, justice Souter inquired about the full sweep argument and the lack of a legal relationship between a patent‑infringing object’s supplier and the ship in the United States.
What the Court decided
Why it matters
According to Gregory G. Garre, applying the ADA extraterritorially could create international legal conflicts, as noted by the Bahamas amicus.
According to David B. Salmons, a broad definition of commerce could extend U.S. regulatory reach to international travel.
Terms to know
- commerce
- Definition of commerce here is broader than it was and specifically refers to travel between the United States and foreign countries.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- 5ef9a2d36cd9d4308ce4-r1-3a0fc2b63b9ac038.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 20, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.