Disabled win right to sue over access
Tuesday, May 18, 2004 7:37 AM PDT
By Los Angeles Times
Printable version
E-mail this articleWASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court on Monday narrowly held that states are subject to the provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act, ruling that they can be sued for excluding disabled people from courthouses or voting booths or denying them crucial public services.
The 5-4 decision -- which rejected a claim of states' rights -- turned on the Constitution's demand that states not deny persons "the equal protection of the laws." It came on the 50th anniversary of the court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education, which used the same constitutional provision to overturn state-sanctioned racial segregation.
The five justices in the majority said Monday that a state's "pattern of unequal treatment" against people with disabilities, like a state's discrimination against blacks, violates the Constitution. Victims of such discrimination may sue the state, the court said.
The four dissenting justices said that states have a "sovereign immunity" that shields them against such claims.
While Monday's decision arose from a rural Tennessee courthouse that had no ramps or elevators to its second-floor hearing rooms, the high court's ruling will put new pressure on public officials to provide full access to disabled individuals. This could mean providing sign-language interpreters for the deaf or making sure that disabled persons have access to public buses and trains.
The practical impact of the decision in other states is not clear. Since the 1970s, federal law has required public buildings to accommodate persons with disabilities. Schools, colleges, libraries and courthouses have installed ramps and elevators. But in some areas, particularly in rural communities, older buildings were not renovated.
"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 in Washington. It "narrowly rejected a radical reinterpretation of states' rights that would have robbed millions of a vital means of protecting their civil rights."
Jennifer Mathis, an attorney with the same disability-rights group, said that "accessibility means many things. It is not just about getting in the front door."
However, for George Lane, the issue was getting in the front door.
In 1996, he was summoned to appear at the Polk County, Tenn., courthouse for a misdemeanor driving charge resulting from an accident that put him in a wheelchair. When he arrived at the courthouse, he learned the hearing was on the second floor.
To get to the hearing, he had to crawl up two flights of stairs. When he was called back for a second appearance, he refused and was arrested for failing to appear.He then sued Tennessee under the Americans with Disabilities Act, contending that the state had failed to make "reasonable modifications" to 25 county courthouses to aid persons in wheelchairs. He was joined by Beverly Jones, a disabled court reporter, who said she had missed out on assignments because she could not get to some courtrooms.
Their case became a test of whether the disabilities act could be enforced against the states.
When then-President George H.W. Bush signed the act into law in 1990, it was hailed as a landmark in providing full equality for those with disabilities. It prohibited employers, school, colleges and public agencies from discriminating against people with severe physical or mental impairments, and it required them to take reasonable steps to accommodate the disabled.
But in recent years, there were doubts about whether this federal mandate could be enforced against the states.
In a series of 5-4 rulings, the high court's conservative majority has said that states have a "sovereign immunity" shielding them from certain federal laws, including the disabilities act.
Three years ago, for example, the court ruled that disabled state employees could not sue their agencies for discrimination under the act if they were fired or demoted because of their impairments.
The states can "quite hardheadedly -- and hardheartedly -- hold to job qualification requirements that do not make allowance for the disabled," Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist wrote in the case, involving a nurse at an Alabama state hospital who was demoted after undergoing treatment for breast cancer.
Relying on that precedent, Tennessee's lawyers argued that the states also should be shielded from the part of the law that required them to open their buildings and services to disabled individuals. A high court ruling in Tennessee's favor would have all but voided the act's application to state agencies.
But Bush administration lawyers joined Lane's side in arguing that the mandate to open facilities to disabled people could be upheld as a civil-rights enforcement measure under the 14th Amendment. That post-Civil War measure says Congress may "enforce, by appropriate legislation," basic civil rights against violations by the states.
That argument prevailed in Tennessee vs. Lane, thanks to a crucial shift by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. She abandoned her conservative colleagues who support states' rights and voted with the court's liberal bloc to uphold the disability rights claims whenever "fundamental rights" are at stake.
Justice John Paul Stevens, speaking for the court, said Congress had enacted the law "against a backdrop of pervasive unequal treatment" against disabled persons, "including systematic deprivation of fundamental rights." But he stopped short of saying states could be sued in all circumstances -- including, for example, by disabled prisoners who say their rights were violated.
Instead, he said, the law stands whenever a "fundamental right" such as voting or access to the courts is at issue.
Justices David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer joined with Stevens and O'Connor.
The four dissenters, led by Rehnquist, said they would have voided the entire law. Constitutional rights for the disabled are "quite limited," Rehnquist said. The Constitution "permits a state to classify on the basis of disability so long as it has a rational basis for doing so," he said, including a desire to save money.
Rehnquist was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia and Anthony M. Kennedy.
Copyright 2004 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Past Month's Most Commented Stories