{"argument_date":"2023-10-04T00:00:00Z","arguments":[{"argument_date":"2023-10-04T00:00:00Z","heading":"Argument Analysis: October 4, 2023","official_detail_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcript/2023","official_transcript_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2023/22-429_9klb.pdf","paragraphs":["The hotel argued that resolving standing was necessary to prevent jurisdictional manipulation. The plaintiff argued that discriminatory denial of information is a concrete injury. The government urged the Court to vacate the lower court's judgment. The justices tested whether the plaintiff had a concrete stake. They also examined if the case was moot due to changed ownership.","Justice Sotomayor questioned the risk of an advisory opinion. Justice Jackson probed whether observing a barrier creates standing. The Court ultimately dismissed the case as moot. It vacated the lower court's judgment and remanded for dismissal. This outcome avoided a direct ruling on the standing question."],"reargument":false,"sequence":1,"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Docket","label":"Official Supreme Court Docket — file page 1, lines 161-240","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22-429.html","page_label":"file page 1, lines 161-240"},{"evidence_type":"Opinion","label":"Official Supreme Court Opinion — file page 6, lines 1-37","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/601us1r01_q86b.pdf","page_label":"file page 6, lines 1-37"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 43, lines 47-13","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2023/22-429_9klb.pdf","page_label":"file page 43, lines 47-13"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 21-37","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2023/22-429_9klb.pdf","page_label":"file page 7, lines 21-37"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 72, lines 17-37","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2023/22-429_9klb.pdf","page_label":"file page 72, lines 17-37"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 88, lines 27-17","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2023/22-429_9klb.pdf","page_label":"file page 88, lines 27-17"}]}],"caption":"Acheson Hotels, LLC v. Laufer","case_history":[{"changed_at":"2026-09-04T22:30:10.962030Z","explanation":"The Court held oral argument and published an official transcript.","status":"argued"}],"case_status":"argued","dek":"The Supreme Court dismissed the case as moot and vacated the lower court's judgment.","dek_sources":[{"evidence_type":"Docket","label":"Official Supreme Court Docket — file page 1, lines 161-240","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22-429.html","page_label":"file page 1, lines 161-240"},{"evidence_type":"Opinion","label":"Official Supreme Court Opinion — file page 6, lines 1-37","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/601us1r01_q86b.pdf","page_label":"file page 6, lines 1-37"}],"dispositions":[],"latest_court_document_date":"2023-10-04T00:00:00Z","maturity":"official_transcript","official_detail_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcript/2023","official_disposition_urls":["https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/601us1r01_q86b.pdf"],"official_docket_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22-429.html","primary_docket":"22-429","revisions":[{"correction_note":null,"created_at":"2026-09-04T22:30:10.962030Z","maturity":"official_transcript","revision_number":1},{"correction_note":"Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.","created_at":"2026-09-05T03:22:24Z","maturity":"official_transcript","revision_number":2}],"schema_version":"1.1","sections":[{"heading":"What this case is about","paragraphs":["The core issue is whether a disabled person has standing to sue a hotel. The plaintiff encountered an accessibility barrier on a reservation website. She did not have concrete travel plans at the time. The hotel argued she lacked a personal stake in the outcome. This dispute centers on the constitutional requirement for a concrete injury."],"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Opinion","label":"Official Supreme Court Opinion — file page 2, lines 1-31","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/601us1r01_q86b.pdf","page_label":"file page 2, lines 1-31"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-35","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2023/22-429_9klb.pdf","page_label":"file page 4, lines 23-35"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 69, lines 43-47","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2023/22-429_9klb.pdf","page_label":"file page 69, lines 43-47"}]},{"heading":"How the case got here","paragraphs":["The lower court ruled in favor of the plaintiff. The hotel then changed ownership, which affected the legal dispute. This change created a mootness issue for the Supreme Court. The Court had to decide if it could still hear the case. Both sides agreed the case should be resolved on Article III grounds."],"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 43, lines 47-13","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2023/22-429_9klb.pdf","page_label":"file page 43, lines 47-13"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 21-37","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2023/22-429_9klb.pdf","page_label":"file page 7, lines 21-37"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 19-29","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2023/22-429_9klb.pdf","page_label":"file page 8, lines 19-29"}]},{"heading":"What each side wants","paragraphs":["The hotel wanted the Court to dismiss the case as moot. It argued that deciding standing would prevent future manipulation of jurisdiction. The plaintiff wanted the Court to recognize her injury. She argued that discriminatory denial of information is a concrete harm. The government urged the Court to vacate the lower court's judgment."],"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Opinion","label":"Official Supreme Court Opinion — file page 6, lines 1-37","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/601us1r01_q86b.pdf","page_label":"file page 6, lines 1-37"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 102, lines 13-19","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2023/22-429_9klb.pdf","page_label":"file page 102, lines 13-19"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 43, lines 47-13","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2023/22-429_9klb.pdf","page_label":"file page 43, lines 47-13"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 72, lines 17-37","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2023/22-429_9klb.pdf","page_label":"file page 72, lines 17-37"}]},{"heading":"What each side says","paragraphs":["The hotel's advocate argued that indefinite travel plans do not satisfy standing requirements. They claimed ADA claims are limited to injunctive relief. The plaintiff's advocate argued that discriminatory treatment alone constitutes an injury. They distinguished this from a mere informational harm. The government argued that the ADA frames the standing inquiry."],"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 35-39","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2023/22-429_9klb.pdf","page_label":"file page 25, lines 35-39"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 35, lines 47-49","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2023/22-429_9klb.pdf","page_label":"file page 35, lines 47-49"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 51, lines 49-31","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2023/22-429_9klb.pdf","page_label":"file page 51, lines 49-31"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 69, lines 43-47","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2023/22-429_9klb.pdf","page_label":"file page 69, lines 43-47"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 72, lines 17-37","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2023/22-429_9klb.pdf","page_label":"file page 72, lines 17-37"}]},{"heading":"What the justices asked","paragraphs":["Justice Sotomayor raised concerns about issuing an advisory opinion. She noted the plaintiff's withdrawal and the hotel's changed ownership. Justice Jackson questioned whether observing a barrier without intent to use the service creates standing. These questions tested the assumptions about concrete injury and jurisdiction. The justices probed the limits of Article III standing in this context."],"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 21-37","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2023/22-429_9klb.pdf","page_label":"file page 7, lines 21-37"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 88, lines 27-17","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2023/22-429_9klb.pdf","page_label":"file page 88, lines 27-17"}]}],"slug":"2023-22-429-acheson-hotels-llc-v-laufer","term":"2023","title":"Acheson Hotels, LLC v. Laufer: What the Court Decided","title_sources":[{"evidence_type":"Opinion","label":"Official Supreme Court Opinion — file page 2, lines 1-31","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/601us1r01_q86b.pdf","page_label":"file page 2, lines 1-31"},{"evidence_type":"Opinion","label":"Official Supreme Court Opinion — file page 6, lines 1-37","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/601us1r01_q86b.pdf","page_label":"file page 6, lines 1-37"}],"topics":[],"undated_disposition_date_fallback":"latest_argument_date","updated_at":"2026-09-05T03:22:24Z"}