Spector v. Norwegian Cruise Line Ltd., 545 U.S. 119 (2005)
Primary Holding
Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act applies to foreign-flag cruise ships operating in United States waters, provided there is a clear congressional intent to impose such requirements, particularly concerning the removal of physical barriers.
In the case of Spector v. Norwegian Cruise Line, the Supreme Court decided that the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) applies to foreign cruise ships operating in U.S. waters. This is important because it means that these cruise lines must make their ships accessible to people with disabilities, helping to ensure equal treatment for all passengers. If you're planning a cruise on a foreign ship that departs from the U.S., this ruling is relevant because it gives you the right to expect accommodations that meet ADA standards.
AI-generated plain-language summary to help you understand this case
In Spector v. Norwegian Cruise Line Ltd., the underlying dispute arose from the application of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to foreign-flag cruise ships operating in U.S. waters. The petitioners, a group of disabled individuals and their companions, purchased tickets for cruises on the Norwegian Sea and Norwegian Star, both registered in the Bahamas. They alleged that Norwegian Cruise Line Ltd. (NCL), a Bermuda corporation with significant operations in the United States, failed to comply with ADA requirements, which they argued should apply to the cruise ships due to their operations primarily serving U.S. residents and departing from U.S. ports. The procedural history began when the petitioners filed a class action lawsuit against NCL in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. The case was subsequently appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which concluded that Title III of the ADA did not apply to foreign-flag ships, citing a presumption against the application of general statutes to such vessels without clear congressional intent. This decision conflicted with a ruling from the Eleventh Circuit, which had held that the ADA does apply to foreign-flag cruise ships in U.S. waters. To resolve this conflict, the Supreme Court granted certiorari. Relevant background context includes the fact that NCL operates its cruise ships as floating resorts, primarily catering to U.S. residents, and relies heavily on U.S. advertising to promote its cruises. Despite this, the ships are registered in other countries, a practice known as "flagging out." This case raised significant questions about the scope of the ADA and the extent to which U.S. laws apply to foreign-flag vessels operating within U.S. jurisdiction, particularly concerning the rights of disabled individuals.
Whether Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 applies to foreign-flag cruise ships operating in United States waters.
The judgment is reversed and remanded.
- Court
- Supreme Court
- Decision Date
- February 28, 2005
- Jurisdiction
- federal
- Case Type
- landmark
- Majority Author
- Kennedy
- Damages Awarded
- N/A
- Data Quality
- high
Stewart v. Dutra Constr. Co., 543 U.S. 481 (2005)
Consumer WonA dredge is considered a "vessel" under the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (LHWCA), allowing individuals injured while working on such a vessel to pursue claims under the Act.
Lincoln Property Co. v. Roch, 546 U.S. 81 (2005)
Consumer LostDefendants may remove a civil action from state court to federal court based on diversity of citizenship if there is complete diversity between all named plaintiffs and all named defendants, and no defendant is a citizen of the forum State; it is not the responsibility of the named defendants to prove the nonexistence of a potential defendant whose presence would destroy diversity.
United States v. Olson, 546 U.S. 43 (2005)
Mixed OutcomeThe Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) waives sovereign immunity only in circumstances where the United States would be liable as a "private person" under local law, not based on the liability of state or municipal entities.
San Remo Hotel, L. P. v. City and County of San Francisco, 545 U.S. 323 (2005)
Consumer LostFederal courts cannot create an exception to the full faith and credit statute, 28 U.S.C. §1738, for claims brought under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, thereby affirming that state court decisions on takings claims must be respected in federal court.