Justice Jackson’s Misguided Attack on Written Law

The Supreme Court cases that set off the fiercest conflicts among the justices aren’t always the hot-button ones. Consider last week’s decision in Stanley v. City of Sanford. The Court took the case because the plaintiff asked it to resolve a long-standing circuit split on a fairly prosaic question of employment law: whether the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) protects disabled retirees from discrimination regarding their retirement benefits that occurs after they’ve retired. The Court, in a 7–2 opinion by Justice Neil Gorsuch, said no.

The stakes were fairly low: retiree claims are a modest corner of ADA litigation, and they are covered to some extent by other federal as well as state statutes. Even Gorsuch’s opinion noted that there could be other ways for some retirees to bring claims, possibly including this very plaintiff if her lawyers had handled her case differently. At any rate, if Congress dislikes the outcome, it could revisit the question with a narrow fix. Even Justice Elena Kagan joined the majority’s straightforward analysis of the statutory text.

About the Author

Dan McLaughlin

Dan McLaughlin is a senior writer at National Review Online and a fellow at National Review Institute.

Featured Tags

Ketanji Brown Jackson

Constitutional Government

The Supreme Court cases that set off the fiercest conflicts among the justices aren’t always the hot-button ones. Consider last week’s decision in Stanley v. City of Sanford. The Court took the case because the plaintiff asked it to resolve a long-standing circuit split on a fairly prosaic question of employment law: whether the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) protects disabled retirees from discrimination regarding their retirement benefits that occurs after they’ve retired. The Court, in a 7–2 opinion by Justice Neil Gorsuch, said no.

The stakes were fairly low: retiree claims are a modest corner of ADA litigation, and they are covered to some extent by other federal as well as state statutes. Even Gorsuch’s opinion noted that there could be other ways for some retirees to bring claims, possibly including this very plaintiff if her lawyers had handled her case differently. At any rate, if Congress dislikes the outcome, it could revisit the question with a narrow fix. Even Justice Elena Kagan joined the majority’s straightforward analysis of the statutory text.