## Facts

- Disabled passengers and companions bought tickets for round-trip Norwegian Cruise Line voyages departing from and returning to a U.S. port.
- The cruise line operated foreign-flag vessels that embarked and disembarked passengers at U.S. ports and traveled in U.S. waters.
- Passengers alleged barriers and discriminatory conditions, including limited access to pools, restaurants, elevators, and restrooms, and inferior accessible cabins priced at a premium.
- Passengers also alleged exclusion from emergency drills and inadequate emergency planning for disabled passengers.
- Plaintiffs sued under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), seeking relief for discriminatory policies and for failure to remove architectural barriers and make reasonable modifications.
- The cruise line argued that, absent a clear congressional statement, general federal statutes do not apply to foreign-flag ships.

## Issues

1. Whether Title III of the ADA applies to foreign-flag cruise ships operating in United States waters.
2. Whether a clear-statement requirement limits ADA enforcement against foreign-flag vessels when compliance would affect a ship’s internal affairs.
3. Whether courts must evaluate ADA requirements categorically or on a provision-by-provision basis, including potential conflicts with maritime safety and international obligations.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the judgment that categorically exempted foreign-flag cruise ships from Title III.
- The Court held that Title III applies to foreign-flag cruise ships in U.S. waters except insofar as a particular application would regulate the vessel’s internal affairs absent a clear congressional statement.
- The Court directed lower courts to assess specific ADA claims in light of (1) the internal-affairs clear-statement limitation and (2) Title III’s statutory limits on required modifications.

## Legal Principles

- Title III’s definitions of “public accommodation” and “specified public transportation” can encompass passenger-facing facilities and transportation services provided by cruise ships.
- A clear-statement requirement bars applying general federal statutes to foreign-flag vessels only when the application would interfere with the vessel’s internal affairs (such as crew discipline, manning, or internal management), absent clear congressional authorization.
- The clear-statement rule does not create a blanket exemption for foreign-flag ships from all federal legislation; courts must examine challenged requirements provision by provision.
- Title III’s built-in constraints—“readily achievable” barrier removal, “reasonable modifications,” and exceptions for fundamental alteration and direct safety threats—limit compelled changes that would compromise safety or conflict with international obligations.

## Conclusion

Title III of the ADA reaches foreign-flag cruise ships in U.S. waters for many passenger-related accommodations, but it cannot be applied, without a clear congressional statement, to impose requirements that regulate a vessel’s internal affairs or that would create safety or international-law conflicts; lower courts must evaluate particular ADA demands individually.


Spector v. Norwegian Cruise Line Ltd., 545 U.S. 119 (2005)