The Supreme Court didn't say anything. All they did was decline to hear the appeal.
From skimming the petition and responses, it looks like the situation is that the 9th Circuit is allowing the case to go ahead to determine whether or not Domino's website is violating accessibility requirements, which means that there's not a lot of facts and administrative record for SCOTUS to attempt to decide if the reasoning as to how to determine how the ADA applies here. In other words, this does feel like a case that SCOTUS rejected in large part because the petition is way too premature--the respondent's brief definitely feels far more persuasive to me than the petitioner's (Domino's) briefs.
This is actually a big deal because what was ruled on was the legal matter of whether a business could be sued based on their website.
The facts of what constitutes a sufficiently-accessible website necessarily have not been discussed, because Dominos was trying to boot the case before any factual determinations were made.
Their argument was that, as a matter of law, they could not be sued under the ADA based on their website. This argument prevailed at the District Court, lost at the Ninth Circuit, and was unanimously declined to be heard at SCOTUS.
That sends a loud and clear message, and this will essentially become the law of the land for at least the next few decades.
Note: I have not deeply read all the opinions, but I am a lawyer who is familiar with appellate procedure and the ADA.
It’s a little more tightly scoped than that. From what I’m seeing, no parties are arguing that websites are themselves Title III “public accommodations”. Rather, the 9th circuit held that the Domino’s websites were part of the Domino’s services at their brick & mortar restaurants.
In other words, this case only directly applies to physical businesses with an online component (buy-online-pick-up-in-store or similar).
I’ll be curious to see – assuming that Robles eventually wins – if this case is ever used to argue that an online-only business is subject to Title III. It doesn’t seem like a slam dunk connection.
(Not a lawyer, but I do enjoy reading court documents.)
We don't know that. It takes 4 votes for SCOTUS to agree to hear a case, and the voting breakdown is usually not revealed unless some justice decides to write an opinion disagreeing with the decision.
The Supreme Court didn't say anything. All they did was decline to hear the appeal.
From skimming the petition and responses, it looks like the situation is that the 9th Circuit is allowing the case to go ahead to determine whether or not Domino's website is violating accessibility requirements, which means that there's not a lot of facts and administrative record for SCOTUS to attempt to decide if the reasoning as to how to determine how the ADA applies here. In other words, this does feel like a case that SCOTUS rejected in large part because the petition is way too premature--the respondent's brief definitely feels far more persuasive to me than the petitioner's (Domino's) briefs.