quote: Supreme Court: States Can Be Sued Under Disability Law
Monday, May 17, 2004 12:47 p.m. ET
By James Vicini
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Monday that states can be sued for money damages under a landmark federal civil rights law for failing to provide access to the courthouse for people with disabilities.
The decision was hailed as a major victory for millions of disabled Americans. It departed from the recent string of rulings by the court's conservative majority that have expanded the rights of states to be free from certain lawsuits.
By a 5-4 vote, the high court ruled that the U.S. Congress did not exceed its authority when it adopted the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and subjected states to lawsuits by disabled people seeking damages for violations of the law, such as a lack of access to courthouses.
The ruling applied only to the fundamental right of being able to get into a courtroom, but it could have broader implications. The part of the law at issue, known as Title II, bars discrimination in state government services, programs or activities.
"Today's decision is a huge win at a critical time for millions of Americans with disabilities," said Ira Burnim, legal director at the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law.
"The Supreme Court today narrowly rejected a radical interpretation of states' rights that would have robbed millions of a vital means of protecting their civil rights," he said.
The ruling represented a victory for two paraplegics who sued Tennessee under the law because they had been unable to get to the second floors of county courthouses in the state.
George Lane, a paraplegic who uses a wheelchair, was charged in 1996 with two misdemeanor offenses and summoned to appear at the Polk County Courthouse in Benton, where all court proceedings take place on the second floor. The building had no elevator.
Lane crawled up two flights of stairs to get to his initial appearance and refused to crawl or be carried by officers at his second. In further proceedings, Lane stayed on the ground floor while his lawyer shuttled back and forth.
The judge finally ordered the rest of the proceedings put on hold pending the construction of an elevator.
The other paraplegic was Beverly Jones, a court reporter who uses a wheelchair. She said she lost work because she could not access proceedings in four county courthouses.
The high court ruled Jones and Lane can sue Tennessee.
DISABLED EXCLUDED FROM COURTHOUSES
Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority, said the U.S. Congress learned that many individuals were being excluded from courthouses and court proceedings because of their disabilities.
He said the law was "an appropriate response to this history and pattern of unequal treatment."
The U.S. Justice Department defended the law and said it covered the states. Other supporters included disability rights advocates and civil rights and legal groups. They said the case could have profound implications for the approximately 49 million Americans with disabilities.
Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote in dissent that there has not been a history of discrimination against disabled people in the state courts.
"There is nothing ... to indicate that disabled persons were systematically denied the right to be present at criminal trials, denied the meaningful opportunity to be heard in civil cases, unconstitutionally excluded from jury service or denied the right to attend criminal trials," he said.
I'm not posting much, but I'm checking in a couple times a day. The explanation for my flight the other day in the thread about airline travel is that I'm visiting my family - mom&dad mostly, until Wednesday. Don't want to use up the valuable time being on the computer. I'm just logging on enough to keep up a little with Hatrack and to keep my email from getting out of control.
See ya in a few days. Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
OK, this particular legal issue has never been dealt with well in the press, so I'll try to shed some light on the underlying issue.
The 11th amendment protects states from suit in Federal Courts from citizens of other states: "The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another state, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign state."
The Supreme Court has interpreted this amendment, along with a historical doctrine called "Sovereign Immunity," to mean that states are only subject to suits for monetary damages by inidividual citizens if the states voluntarily allow themselves to be subject to such suits.
Because the Court has traced such protection to the 11th Amendment, any provision of the Constitution which predates that amendment (early 19th century) cannot be used as the basis for Congress to authorize suits by citizens against states. The ADA, along with most other Civil Rights acts, was actually passed under the Interstate Commerce Clause, and targets actions thought to impede such commerce. States are generally subject to these regulations as market participants, on the theory that Congress is treating the states just like it treats private employees.
However, the catch is that these civil rights acts usually create a private cause of action. That is, if you are unfairly discriminated against in violation of one of these laws, you can bring suit yourself. This suit can be for injunctive relief, seeking an order from the court that such discrimination stop, for monetary damages (lost wages, etc.), or both. Having a right to private action means that individual victims can seek relief on their own without having to wait for overworked federal agencies to bring action on their behalf.
Here's where the problem comes in: the commerce clause, which predates the 11th amendment, does not grant Congress the power to authorize private citizens to sue states for monetary damages. So, the federal government CAN require states to meet certain standards, but it cannot require them to pay private damages for violating those standards. This means private citizens can only receive injunctive relief unless the federal government acts on their behalf.
However, the 14th Amendment post-dates the 11th. Therefore, Congress can authorize private suits by citizens against states under the section 5 enforcement clause of that amendment. So the priniciple issue in this case is was the ADA provision authorizing suits against states a valid means of enforcing the 14th amendment equal protection clause?
To authorize suits under the 14th, there must be a showing of a pattern of unconstitutional violations of §1 rights as defined by the judiciary, and that the particular remedial steps are congruent and proportional to the pattern of violations. In other words, Congress can't expand the limits of the rights granted by the 14th amendment unless such expansion is needed to overcome intentional deprivations of those rights. The most clear example is in racial discrimination. The Court has held time and again that a policy with a disparate impact on people of different races does not violate the 14th amendment without some showing of intentional discrimination. However, when Congress found there was a pattern of deliberate discrimination in state hiring, it was able to require states to adopt hiring policies that do not have a disparate impact, on the theory that the state officials have proven they have bad intent.
In this case (I haven't read the decision), I'm assuming they found there was a proper showing of a pattern of discrimination in access to state courts and that private suits are a reasonable response to that pattern.
However, even if the Court had ruled the other way, it is important to note that Congress still would have the power to require state courts to have accessible courthouses. Private citizens could sue for orders to make them accessible, and Congress could authorize the Federal government to collect civil fines for violations. This ruling simply allows the additional step of private suits for monetary damages.
Dagonee *Probably more than you wanted to know, huh?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
