This week I read a Supreme Court case for my class, Martin v. PGA (2000). A professional golfer, Casey Martin, sued the PGA under the ADA because they wouldn’t allow him to ride in a golf cart between holes during their highest level tournaments. Aside from his leg disability that didn’t allow him to walk between holes for extended periods of time, Martin was an amazing professional golfer. I found the opinions written by both the majority and the minority (Scalia and Thomas) pretty compelling arguments. The majority stated that the extra walking that Martin would be required to do, irregardless of the cart, would amount to “greater” fatigue than an entire 18 hole walk for most players, so the argument that Martin was somehow being excused from a strenuous part of the game was false. At the same time, many people believe walking the course is an essential part of the game of golf. How essential is up for debate, because many levels of golf tournaments allow carts, and most golf clubs allow carts. The walking of the course can’t be compared to running up and down the basketball court, for example, because anyone who is incapable of doing that is just playing HORSE, not amateur basketball. However, professional golfers, the PGA, and anyone financially invested in golf (Nike, for example), have a stake in preserving golf as an elite athletic sport, rather than a game of skill. The question that the professor ended with is that the case is really about the essential purpose of golf as entertainment, in which case the court couldn’t decide whether or not to allow carts, or as a pursuit of excellence, where the ADA would apply.