In the case of Randon Bragdon v. Sidney Abbott et al., 1997, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Sidney Abbott, a woman who was refused dental treatment by Dr. Randon Bragdon due to her HIV-positive status. The court held that under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), HIV infection is considered a disability even if it has not yet progressed into symptomatic AIDS and therefore individuals cannot be denied public services on this basis. This decision affirmed that asymptomatic HIV qualifies as an impairment substantially limiting major life activities because it hinders reproduction and childbearing - two significant aspects of human life. It also clarified that healthcare providers must make individualized assessments based on current medical knowledge or best available objective evidence when determining direct threat to health or safety rather than making decisions based on generalizations about diseases.

In the dissenting opinion for Randon Bragdon v. Sidney Abbott, et al., Justice Scalia disagreed with the majority's view that HIV infection constituted a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). He argued that not all serious medical conditions are disabilities and to classify them as such would be an overreach of ADA’s intended scope. In his interpretation, a condition only becomes a disability when it substantially limits one or more major life activities. Since Abbott was asymptomatic at the time of her dental treatment refusal, he believed she did not meet this criterion. Furthermore, he criticized the majority for their broad definition of "major life activity" which included reproduction - something he felt was inconsistent with Congress' intent in drafting ADA legislation.