Whether a state procedural law that immunizes a healthcare provider from liability during a public health emergency may override a federal substantive claim based on the Americans with Disability Act and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, effectively denying the corresponding remedy authorized by these federal statutes by forcing plaintiffs to meet a heightened standard to prove federal claims than provided for in the federal statutes

Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and § 504 of the Rehab ilitation Act (“RA”) require public accommodations that receive fed eral funding to pro vide rea sonable accommodations for people with disabilities and prohibits dis crim ination based on a disability. In the deci sion below, the Loui siana First Circuit Court of Appeals held that, for any claims made during the COVID -19 emergency, these statutes are violated only if healthcare pro viders acted with “gross negligence or willful misconduct,” a stan dard based on the state’s public health emergency statute, the Louisiana Health Emergency Powers Act (“LHEPA”). La. R.S. § 29:771. This deci sion creates a paradox in which a plain tiff’s federal claims may be dis missed based purely on the incident timing, even when such dismissal is not supported by fed eral law. Addi tionally, the Louisiana Court of Appeals decision shields a pro vider who discriminatorily denies care to a patient . THE QUESTION PRESENTED IS: Whether a state procedural law that immunizes a healthcare pro vider from liability during a public health emergency may override a fed eral sub stantive claim based on the Americans with Disability Act and the Rehab ilitation Act of 1973 , effec tively denying the corresponding remedy auth orized by these fed eral statutes by forcing plain tiffs to meet a heightened standard to prove federal claims than pro vided for in the federal statutes.