Idk I think it's pretty obvious she has standing here - she's disabled. I don't think it matters whether or not she intends to visit the hotels.
Because it reduces your options in the event of a potential future visit. Right now she has no intention of visiting those hotels, but she may need to visit a hotel in the future. And if the number of hotels that are accessible to her are limited, then she is injured. I just don't buy that we have to wait until she actually makes the trip.
Court has repeatedly rejected that theory of standing — you may need to do a lot of things in the future. Injury needs to be concrete. Otherwise you could concoct a hypothetical scenario that would let you sue over pretty much anything (such as, for instance, whether or not mifepristone should be legal).
