## Facts

- Theodore A. Pinnock, an attorney who uses a wheelchair, visited and dined at an International House of Pancakes franchise operated by Majid Zahedi.
- On June 21, 1992, Pinnock attempted to use the restaurant restroom but the entrance was too narrow for his wheelchair.
- Pinnock alleged he had to leave his wheelchair and crawl into the restroom.
- Pinnock sued asserting Title III ADA claims and multiple California-law claims based on alleged architectural barriers and resulting harm.
- Zahedi asserted numerous affirmative defenses challenging Title III’s constitutionality and filed a counterclaim seeking a declaratory judgment that Title III is unconstitutional.
- The United States intervened to defend Title III and sought summary judgment on the constitutional challenges.

## Issues

1. Whether Title III of the ADA, as applied to a restaurant franchise, is within Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause.
2. Whether Title III is unconstitutionally vague due to standards such as “readily achievable,” “reasonable modifications,” and “undue burden.”
3. Whether Title III effects an unconstitutional taking of private property without just compensation by requiring accessibility-related alterations.
4. Whether Title III violates the Tenth Amendment by intruding on areas traditionally regulated by states, such as building codes.
5. Whether Title III unlawfully delegates legislative power to the Attorney General or the judiciary.
6. Whether Title III is impermissibly retroactive in violation of due process by imposing obligations on existing facilities.

## Decision

- The court denied Zahedi’s motion for summary judgment premised on Title III’s alleged unconstitutionality.
- The court granted the United States’ cross-motion for summary judgment on the constitutional challenges.
- The court held Title III constitutional under the Commerce Clause and rejected the vagueness, takings, Tenth Amendment, nondelegation, and retroactivity challenges.
- The order resolved only the constitutional objections; the underlying statutory and factual disputes remained to be litigated.

## Legal Principles

- Congress may regulate discrimination by places of public accommodation under the Commerce Clause when the regulated activity substantially affects interstate commerce, including in the aggregate.
- A federal statute is not void for vagueness if it provides regulated parties fair notice and workable standards; defined terms, multi-factor tests, and implementing regulations can supply sufficient specificity.
- Accessibility requirements that operate as generally applicable regulatory obligations, limit duties by feasibility and cost (e.g., “readily achievable”), and preserve economically viable use ordinarily do not constitute a taking requiring compensation.
- When Congress legislates within an enumerated power and regulates private parties rather than directing state governments, federal regulation does not violate the Tenth Amendment merely because it touches areas of traditional state concern.
- Delegation to an agency is valid when Congress supplies an intelligible principle and meaningful statutory standards to guide rulemaking and enforcement.
- A statute is not impermissibly retroactive when it imposes duties prospectively (including on continuing conditions) and provides effective dates or compliance periods rather than attaching liability to past conduct.

## Conclusion

The court sustained Title III of the ADA against multiple constitutional attacks and allowed the plaintiff’s accessibility claims to proceed without the asserted constitutional bar.


Pinnock v. Int'l House of Pancakes, 844 F. Supp. 574 (S.D. Cal. 1993)