## Facts

- The PGA Tour, Inc. operated professional golf tournaments and used a three-stage qualifying process (“Q-School”) open to the public upon payment of a fee and submission of recommendations.
- For the first two stages of Q-School, golf carts were permitted; for the third stage (and many Tour events) the Tour required players to walk under its “hard card” policy.
- Casey Martin, a professional golfer with a degenerative circulatory disorder substantially limiting his ability to walk, requested permission to use a cart during the third stage, supported by medical documentation.
- The Tour denied the request, asserting that the walking rule was part of the conditions of competition.
- Martin sued under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), seeking a reasonable modification of the walking rule.
- The district court entered a permanent injunction requiring the Tour to permit Martin to use a cart, finding the fatigue from walking for able-bodied golfers was not significant and that Martin experienced greater fatigue even with a cart.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding that the tournaments took place at a place of public accommodation and that the requested modification would not fundamentally alter the competition.

## Issues

1. Whether the PGA Tour’s professional tournaments, including competition areas, are operated at a “place of public accommodation” covered by Title III of the ADA.
2. Whether permitting Martin to use a golf cart is a reasonable modification required by Title III, or instead would fundamentally alter the nature of the Tour’s competitions.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed in a 7–2 decision (Justice Stevens for the Court).
- The Court held that Title III applied because the Tour operated golf courses, which are public accommodations, in connection with its tournaments, including the competition areas.
- The Court rejected the argument that competition areas could be treated as exempt “private” enclaves within an otherwise covered facility.
- The Court held that allowing Martin to use a cart was a reasonable modification and did not fundamentally alter the nature of the tournaments.
- The Court relied on the individualized factual record that walking-related fatigue for able-bodied golfers was not significant, and that Martin’s disability imposed greater fatigue and pain even when using a cart, so the cart did not create an unfair competitive advantage.
- Justice Scalia, joined by Justice Thomas, dissented, warning that the decision improperly placed courts in the role of deciding what is “essential” to sports.

## Legal Principles

- Title III of the ADA covers private entities that own, lease, or operate places of public accommodation, including golf courses used for commercial events.
- An operator of a public accommodation may not avoid Title III obligations by designating portions of the facility as functionally off-limits to ADA requirements during an event.
- Title III requires reasonable modifications of policies when necessary to afford access to individuals with disabilities, unless the entity shows the modification would fundamentally alter the nature of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations.
- The reasonable-modification and fundamental-alteration analysis requires an individualized, fact-specific inquiry rather than categorical assumptions about a disability or a sport.
- A modification is less likely to be a fundamental alteration when it adjusts a condition of competition not embedded in the general rules of the game and does not change the core skills being tested.
- In competitive settings, whether an accommodation confers an unfair advantage is a central consideration in assessing fundamental alteration.

## Conclusion

The Court held that the PGA Tour’s tournaments were subject to ADA Title III and that permitting a qualified golfer with a disability to use a cart was a required reasonable modification because it provided equal access without fundamentally changing the nature of championship golf competition.


PGA Tour, Inc. v. Martin, 532 U.S. 661 (2001)