Guillermo Robles, a blind man, sued Domino’s Pizza because their website and mobile app are not accessible to the blind. We’ll discuss the Constitutional issues next on The Constitution Study.
Mr. Robles claimed that the fact that the Domino’s Pizza website and app did not work with his screen-reading software was a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The United States District Court for the Central District of California court held that since there was insufficient guidance from the Department of Justice (DoJ) regarding what was considered successfully passing the Website Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) of the ADA, finding against Domino’s Pizza would be a violation of their due process rights. A panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the district court opinion because, in the panel’s opinion, the ADA applied to both Domino’s physical and virtual locations. The supreme Court of the United States agreed to hear the case for three reasons:
- There is a split between the circuit courts over whether the ADA applies to websites.
- This is a recurring question.
- The Ninth Circuit’s decision is wrong.
Of these three reasons, the third seems to be getting the most attention. Specifically, since the language of the ADA only lists physical locations as “places of public accommodations” for the purpose of the law, websites are not included.
This case brings up two constitutional questions I want to cover in this article.
Legislating vs Judging
The first question is one we cover frequently here at The Constitution Study. If there is a problem with a law, it is the role of Congress to correct it, not the courts.
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 1
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.
U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 1
The power to create and modify laws rests completely and solely with Congress. If a court believes there is a problem with a law (for example, not accommodating updates in technology), then they can note it in their opinion, but they are not allowed to effectively re-write a law because they don’t like it. To do so would certainly not be considered good behavior by our Founding Fathers and is therefore grounds for impeachment.
The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour,
U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 1
How does this apply to this case? Basically, you have courts trying to decide whether the website of a public accommodation is subject to the ADA or not. Some say yes, others say no. However, it is NOT the job of the courts to determine for themselves what the law should mean. If there is ambiguity in a law, especially if the courts do not agree on its intent, then the responsibility to fix it rests in the hands of Congress and not the courts.
Constitutionality
The larger and more important issue is the constitutionality of the ADA in the first place. You see, no where in the Constitution is the federal government given the authority to tell a private company how to do business, except in matters of interstate or foreign commerce. Some more astute readers may claim they have the power under the “Equal Protection” clause of the 14th Amendment. However, if we read the actual language of the amendment we’d see:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
U.S. Constitution, Amendment 14, Section 1
Since, in this case, neither a state nor the federal government passed a law requiring that accommodations cannot be made for handicapped access there is no violation of the 14th Amendment to be rectified by the ADA. In fact, since the ADA is being applied to private individuals and companies rather than states, it is itself a violation of the 14th Amendment since it deprives them of the use of their property without due process of law.
Conclusion
Is it good practice for businesses to make themselves more easily accessible to those with handicaps? In general I would say yes, based on the business owner’s analysis of the costs and benefits of doing so. But it is most certainly not the proper role of government to tell those business owners what and how they should make accommodations. It is not the proper role of government to dictate to their citizens how to live their lives. Generally governments have proven to be very bad at considering what is best for others. I have observed this first hand as I have fought through “handicapped access” issues with my wheelchair bound wife.
If Mr. Robles had difficulty doing business with his local Domino’s pizza, he should have complained to the local store, possibly even the corporate headquarters. He could even go so far as to start an online marketing campaign to build support for his request. However, if accommodations could not or would not be made, then he should have taken his business elsewhere. If enough people agreed with Mr. Robles that access to their systems was more important than their pizza, then Domino’s would have changed.
If we live in a free country, we do not have the authority to force others to accommodate our wishes. None of us, including Mr. Robles, has the authority to pull a gun on a business owner to force them to do business with us. And by extension, we cannot authorize others to do so for us. This case is an excellent example of the bullying and tyranny that is so rampant in society today. People getting governments to tell you what types of stalls to put in your bathroom, who you are forced to do business with, or calling for boycotts of those not favored politically, is nothing but the use of force to bend others to your will. This attitude that I must get my way is a cancer eating out not only our substance of our nation, but our liberties. Until we are willing to grant others the liberty to live as they want we will continue to see our freedoms bulldozed by those who can make a big enough scene in the media or get a court to pound their opponent into submission.
You can have all of the Constitution Study articles delivered directly to your inbox. Just sign up for the mailing list and check the “Web Article” feed in the signup form.
If you liked this article, please share it with your friends.
