Abstract: Professor Sunstein proposes that the foundations of Emens’ approach can be linked with the notion that “morally irrelevant differences have been turned, without sufficient justification, into a systematic source of social disadvantage” and, thus, may be seen as a reflection of an anticaste principle that underlies American law. Thus, Emens’ focus on third-party benefits should be seen “not as a diversion from the fundamental goals of the ADA, but as an effort to reconceive and deepen them.”