545 U.S. 119, 125 S. Ct. 2169, 162 L. Ed. 2d 97 (2005)
In 1998 and 1999, disabled individuals and their companions purchased tickets for round-trip cruises on the Norwegian Sea and Norwegian Star departing from Houston, Texas.1
Norwegian Cruise Line Ltd., a Bermuda corporation with a principal place of business in Miami, Florida, operates cruise ships that depart from and return to ports in the United States.2 The two ships at issue are registered in the Bahamas.3
The petitioners filed a class action against NCL in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas on behalf of all persons similarly situated.4 They alleged violations of Title III of the ADA both in places of public accommodation and in specified public transportation services.5
The District Court held that Title III applies to foreign-flag cruise ships in United States waters but granted NCL's motion to dismiss the barrier-removal claims because the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, the Department of Transportation, and the Department of Justice had not issued architectural guidelines for cruise ships.6 The court denied the motion to dismiss the remaining Title III claims.7
The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part.8 It held that general statutes do not apply to foreign-flag vessels in United States waters absent a clear statement of congressional intent, sustained dismissal of the barrier-removal claims on that ground, and reversed the District Court on the remaining claims, ordering dismissal of the entire action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).9 The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve the conflict with the Eleventh Circuit's decision in Stevens v. Premier Cruises, Inc.10
Whether Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 applies to foreign-flag cruise ships in United States waters?11
Our cases hold that a clear statement of congressional intent is necessary before a general statutory requirement can interfere with matters that concern a foreign-flag vessel's internal affairs and operations. This is contrasted with statutory requirements that concern the security and well-being of United States citizens or territory.
Yes. The Norwegian Sea and the Norwegian Star, though registered in the Bahamas, depart from and return to ports in the United States and serve predominantly United States residents under the operation of NCL, a company based in Miami, Florida. Title III therefore applies to these foreign-flag cruise ships in United States waters to the same extent that it applies to American ships, except insofar as it regulates a vessel's internal affairs.12
Title III of the ADA applies to foreign-flag cruise ships in United States waters except to the extent that it would interfere with the internal affairs of those vessels.13
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Justice Breyer
Justice Ginsburg agreed with the holding that Title III covers cruise ships. She also agreed that ships may resist modifications conflicting with international legal obligations. She joined Parts I, II-A-1, and II-B-2 of the opinion.14
Justice Ginsburg would give no wider berth to the internal affairs clear statement rule. Once conflicts with international legal obligations are avoided, there is no reason to demand a clearer congressional statement. This is true for ships that regularly sail to and from United States ports and derive most income from United States passengers.15
Whether a clear statement of congressional intent is required before Title III can apply to foreign-flag cruise ships with respect to matters concerning their internal affairs and operations?16
Absent a clear statement of congressional intent, general statutes may not apply to foreign-flag vessels insofar as they regulate matters that involve only the internal order and discipline of the vessel, rather than the peace of the port.17
Yes. The Fifth Circuit correctly identified the need for a clear statement when internal affairs are at stake.18 The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that general statutes do not apply to foreign-flag vessels in United States territory absent a clear indication of congressional intent.19 The Supreme Court confirmed that the clear statement rule operates when a ship's internal affairs are affected.20
A clear statement of congressional intent is required before Title III can apply to foreign-flag cruise ships with respect to matters concerning their internal affairs and operations.21
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Thomas agreed that when a law regulates the internal order of ships, Congress must clearly express its intent to apply the law to foreign-flag ships. He joined Part I-A of Justice Scalia's dissent on that point.22 Justice Thomas further agreed that the clear statement rule applies once the possibility rather than the certainty of international discord arises.
The rule does not require an express conflicts-of-law analysis that the plurality demands. He joined Part III-A of the plurality opinion because he rejects an all-or-nothing approach.23
Whether Title III's barrier-removal requirements implicate the internal affairs of foreign-flag cruise ships?24
Yes. The petitioners allege that most cabins on the respondent's cruise ships are not accessible to disabled passengers.27 The ships' coamings make many areas inaccessible to mobility-impaired passengers.28 Removal of these access barriers may be required by Title III's structural barrier-removal requirement.29 Such removal could mandate a permanent and significant alteration of a physical feature of the ship.30
Title III's barrier-removal requirements may implicate the internal affairs of foreign-flag cruise ships when they would require permanent and significant structural modifications.31
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist And Justice O'connor
Justice Scalia would hold that since there is no clear statement of coverage, Title III does not apply to foreign-flag cruise ships at all. Structural modifications required under Title III plainly affect the ship's internal order.32 Rendering exterior cabins handicapped accessible, changing coaming levels, and adding public restrooms would require alteration of core physical aspects of the ship.33
Some of these aspects relate to safety. The possibility of international discord with regard to a seagoing vessel's internal order gives rise to the presumption of noncoverage absent clear statement to the contrary.34
Whether Title III's own limitations and qualifications, including the 'readily achievable' standard, preclude application of requirements that would interfere with foreign-flag vessels' internal affairs?35
Title III requires barrier removal if it is readily achievable. The statute defines that term as easily accomplishable and able to be carried out without much difficulty or expense. A barrier-removal requirement under Title III that would bring a vessel into non-compliance with the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea or any other international legal obligation would create serious difficulties for the vessel and would have a substantial impact on its operation.36
Yes. Because Title III does not require structural modifications that would conflict with international legal obligations or pose any real threat to the safety of the crew or other passengers, it may well follow that Title III does not require any permanent and significant structural modifications that interfere with the internal affairs of any cruise ship, foreign flag or domestic.37 This makes recourse to the clear statement rule unnecessary in many instances.38
Title III's own limitations and qualifications, including the readily achievable standard, may preclude application of requirements that would interfere with foreign-flag vessels' internal affairs.39