The Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of a federal disability discrimination lawsuit against the New Jersey court system in a brief per curiam opinion filed Feb. 6, 2026. The appeals court upheld a lower court's decision to dismiss with prejudice the amended complaint filed by Hilda Kennedy against the State of New Jersey Judiciary.
Kennedy, who identifies as legally blind and physically impaired, brought the lawsuit alleging violations of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination. She claimed that the New Jersey Judiciary and its employees discriminated against her based on her disabilities during four separate state court proceedings in the New Jersey Superior Court in Atlantic County.
The case originated in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey under case number 1:22-cv-05797, where District Judge Karen M. Williams presided over the matter. Kennedy sought both compensatory damages and injunctive relief for the alleged discrimination.
The New Jersey Judiciary moved to dismiss Kennedy's complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows courts to dismiss cases that fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The district court ultimately granted this motion and dismissed Kennedy's amended complaint with prejudice, meaning she cannot refile the same claims.
Kennedy appealed the dismissal to the Third Circuit, where the case was submitted under Third Circuit Local Appellate Rule 34.1(a) on Dec. 17, 2025. This rule allows certain cases to be decided without oral argument when the court determines that oral argument would not significantly aid in the decisional process.
The three-judge panel consisting of Circuit Judges Thomas Hardiman, Cindy Freeman, and Jane Roth issued their decision in a per curiam opinion, meaning it was unsigned and represented the collective view of the court rather than being authored by a single judge. The court provided minimal reasoning for its decision, simply stating "For the following reasons, we will affirm" before concluding the brief opinion.
The appeals court designated its ruling as "not precedential," which means the decision cannot be cited as binding authority in future cases. Under Third Circuit Internal Operating Procedure 5.7, such dispositions do not constitute binding precedent, limiting their impact beyond the specific parties involved.
Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, cited in Kennedy's complaint, prohibits discrimination by public entities, including state and local government agencies, against individuals with disabilities. The law requires these entities to make their programs and services accessible to people with disabilities and to provide reasonable accommodations when necessary.
The New Jersey Law Against Discrimination similarly prohibits discrimination based on disability in various contexts, including access to public accommodations and government services. Both laws provide avenues for individuals to seek legal remedies when they believe they have faced unlawful discrimination.
Kennedy's case appears to center on her experiences as a litigant in the New Jersey state court system, where she was involved in four separate proceedings. The specific nature of the alleged discrimination was not detailed in the available court documents, but her claims suggest she believed the court system failed to provide adequate accommodations for her visual and physical impairments during these proceedings.
The dismissal with prejudice represents a complete victory for the New Jersey Judiciary, as it prevents Kennedy from refiling the same claims in federal court. The Third Circuit's affirmance means Kennedy has exhausted her federal court options unless she petitions the Supreme Court for review, though the high court accepts only a small fraction of such petitions.
For individuals with disabilities who interact with court systems, the case highlights the challenges of pursuing discrimination claims against judicial entities. Courts generally receive significant protections under various immunity doctrines, and plaintiffs must meet specific legal standards to proceed with such lawsuits.
The brevity of the Third Circuit's opinion suggests the appeals court found the lower court's reasoning compelling and saw no clear error in the dismissal. Per curiam opinions are often used when courts view cases as straightforward or when the legal issues have been well-established in prior precedent.
The case reflects ongoing tensions between ensuring courthouse accessibility for individuals with disabilities and the legal protections afforded to judicial systems. While the ADA requires public entities to provide equal access to their services, courts have sometimes struggled with implementing accommodation requirements while maintaining traditional courtroom procedures and security measures.
Kennedy's unsuccessful challenge joins numerous other cases where individual litigants have attempted to hold court systems accountable for alleged accessibility failures. The outcome underscores the difficulty of pursuing such claims and the high legal bar plaintiffs must meet to succeed in federal court against judicial entities.