Reviewed November 4, 2026

Tester Standing After Acheson v. Laufer: The Split Is Still Open

In Acheson Hotels, LLC v. Laufer, 601 U.S. 1 (2023), the Supreme Court vacated the judgment as moot on December 5, 2023, after the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed her suits, and expressly did not decide whether a self appointed ADA tester has Article III standing. The pre existing circuit split, with the Second, Fifth, and Tenth Circuits finding no standing and the First, Fourth, and Eleventh finding standing, still governs by geography.

Businesses keep asking whether the Supreme Court ended tester litigation. It did not. It accepted a case built to answer the question, heard argument in October 2023, and then disposed of the case on mootness, leaving the underlying question exactly where it found it, answered differently depending on the circuit your business sits in.

That non answer is itself the planning fact. A website accessibility defense that assumes testers cannot sue is a defense that works in some federal circuits and fails in others, and the difference is a map, not an argument.

What the Court actually did

Deborah Laufer, a wheelchair user who had sued hundreds of hotels over website accessibility information required by the ADA's Reservation Rule, voluntarily dismissed her pending cases after a lower court sanctioned her lawyer. The Court, in an opinion by Justice Barrett, held the case moot and vacated the First Circuit's judgment under the Munsingwear doctrine.

The opinion warned, in terms, that the Court might exercise its discretion differently in a future case. Justice Thomas, concurring, would have reached the merits and found no standing. The standing question was briefed and argued, and deliberately left undecided, which is why citing Acheson as a standing victory misreads the document.

The split that still runs the map

Before Acheson, the circuits had divided on materially identical facts. The Second, Fifth, and Tenth Circuits held Laufer lacked standing without an intent to visit the property. The First, Fourth, and Eleventh held she had standing. Vacatur erased the First Circuit judgment in her case; it did not erase the reasoning landscape in the other circuits.

For a business with a website, which is to say every business, the practical exposure follows the plaintiff's choice of forum within the rules of personal jurisdiction and venue, not just the store's home circuit. Multi state operators should plan against the stricter forums, because that is where a determined filer will aim.

What to do with an undecided question

Compliance work does not need the standing answer. The underlying obligations for web accessibility exist independently of who may enforce them in which circuit, and remediation costs less than one defended case in almost every realistic comparison. Standing doctrine is a litigation position, not a compliance strategy.

Keep the litigation position anyway, filed correctly. Preserve the standing objection, know your circuit's current law, and track the post Acheson district decisions, which continue to divide. When the Court does take the question again, it will be on a live record, and businesses that treated the 2023 vacatur as a permission slip will be the ones explaining that choice.

Frequently asked questions

Did the Supreme Court rule that ADA testers lack standing?

No. In Acheson Hotels v. Laufer the Court vacated the case as moot in December 2023 and did not decide the standing question. A concurrence by Justice Thomas would have found no standing, but that is not the Court's holding.

What is the circuit split on tester standing?

The Second, Fifth, and Tenth Circuits have held a tester without intent to visit lacks standing, while the First, Fourth, and Eleventh Circuits have held such a tester has standing. The split survived Acheson and continues to shape where suits are filed.

Does Acheson protect my business from website accessibility suits?

No. It removed one judgment against one hotel company. Suits continue, outcomes turn on the forum's law, and the Court signaled it may handle a future mootness attempt differently.

What should a business do while standing law is unsettled?

Remediate the website against WCAG, document the work, and preserve legal objections if sued. Compliance spending does not depend on who wins the standing argument, and it is cheaper than defending the argument itself.