It is almost a truism that at some point a law student will learn Justice Felix Frankfurter’s timeless advice on statutory interpretation, when in doubt: “‘Read the statute; read the statute; read the statute.’” Upon their departure from the halls of academia the student will remember the adage, but will not often be reminded of it. That old adage was heard loud and clear across the nation this week as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held this week that websites are not places of public accommodation within the meaning of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act because Congress had not designated them as such. The issue has created consternation and uncertainty in the law for businesses across the nation.

In a 2-1 decision, the panel in Gil v. Winn-Dixie Stores, held that websites are not within the 12 types of tangible physical places identified in 42 U.S.C. Section 12182(a), and it is the job of Congress, not courts, to decide this issue. The decision conflicts with Robles v. Domino’s Pizza, 913 F.3d. 898 (9th Cir. 2019) (Robles), in which the Ninth Circuit held that the “ADA applies to the services of a public accommodation, not services in a place of public accommodation.” The case appears to establish a circuit split and likely tees the issue up for potential future review in the U.S. Supreme Court.