Splitting 6 to 3, the court ruled that facilities receiving federal money cannot be sued under four federal laws for discrimination that causes emotional distress.

WASHINGTON — Dividing 6 to 3 along ideological lines, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that victims of discrimination that is forbidden by four federal statutes may not sue if the only harm was emotional distress.

The case concerned Jane Cummings, a Texas woman who is deaf and communicates primarily in American Sign Language. In 2016, she sought treatment for chronic back pain at Premier Rehab Keller, a physical therapy facility in the Dallas-Fort Worth area, asking it to provide a sign language interpreter at her appointments.

The facility refused, saying Ms. Cummings could communicate with her therapist using notes, lip reading or gestures. She sued under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Affordable Care Act, both of which ban facilities receiving federal funds — as Premier Rehab Keller had — from discriminating on the basis of disability.

A federal judge found that the only injuries Ms. Cummings had suffered were “humiliation, frustration and emotional distress” and ruled that the laws she invoked did not allow suits for such emotional harm. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in New Orleans, affirmed that ruling.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., writing for the majority on Thursday, said the laws at issue are something like contracts: In exchange for federal money, businesses agree not to discriminate and to be held accountable if they do. This was also true, he wrote, of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on race or national origin, and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which bars discrimination based on sex.

People suing for breach of contract, Chief Justice Roberts continued, generally cannot recover damages for emotional harm caused by the breach. By analogy, he wrote, people suing businesses that accept federal money cannot win such damages, either.

(I myself an legally blind. I suspect this ruling may negatively affect all differently abled persons in a negative way at some point. Also, I attended CSUN, which had the second largest deaf population of any University in the U.S. I think they should be accommodated as they prefer.)