U.S. Supreme Court

U.S. Supreme Court and 7th Circuit Court of Appeals

by Barry C. Taylor, Legal Advocacy Director

Constitutionality of the ADA Again Up for Review

The U.S. Supreme Court will once again hear a case to decide whether Congress acted properly when it made states subject to suits in federal court under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Title II prohibits disability discrimination in the provision of services by state and local governments.

The case pending before the Court is State of Tennessee v. Lane. The plaintiffs in the case, two Tennessee residents with paraplegia, were denied access to judicial proceedings because those proceedings were held in courtrooms on the second floors of buildings lacking elevators.

One of the plaintiffs, Beverly Jones, sought access to the courtroom proceedings to perform her work as a court reporter. The other plaintiff, George Lane, was harmed when the state held proceedings in the criminal case in which he was a defendant in the inaccessible second-floor courtroom and the state arrested him for failure to appear when he refused to crawl or be carried up the steps.

Lane and Jones filed suit under Title II of the ADA to challenge the state's failure to hold proceedings in accessible courthouses. In response to the ADA suit, the state of Tennessee is arguing that it is immune from suits brought under Title II of the ADA.

In its last term, the Court was scheduled to review the constitutionality of the ADA in California Board of Medical Examiners v. Hason. Equip for Equality was successful in advocating with Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan to sign onto an amicus brief supporting the constitutionality of the ADA. However, because of the strong efforts of disability advocates in California, the Board of Medical Examiners withdrew the Hason case and agreed not to argue that the state is immune from the ADA. By agreeing to hear the Lane case, the Court will again have an opportunity to determine whether states are immune from ADA Title II cases in federal court.

The compelling facts of this case, people being denied access to the American judicial system and then being punished for it, demonstrate the importance of the ADA to people with disabilities.

Recently, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Family and Medical Leave Act, allowing state employees to bring suits under that law. It is hoped that the Court will reach the same result and find that the ADA is constitutional so that people with disabilities can fully vindicate their rights when state governmental entities discriminate against them.

Important Victory for People with Disabilities in 7th Circuit Ruling

Equip for Equality, in conjunction with Access Living and the ACLU of Illinois, filed an amicus brief with the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in a case in which the Court agreed to reinstate the ability for people with disabilities to bring Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) claims against state officials in federal court.

Bruggeman v. Blagojevich (formerly known as Boudreau v. Ryan) recognizes that the previous 7th Circuit precedent holding state officials immune from ADA suits is no longer a valid law in light of the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Garrett v. University of Alabama, which recognized that state officials can be sued for injunctive relief under the ADA.

The 7th Circuit, which covers the states of Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin, was the only federal Circuit Court of Appeals in the country that had interpreted the ADA to preclude suits against state officials for disability discrimination. As a result of the Bruggeman decision, these states can no longer argue that its officials are immune from ADA claims seeking nonmonetary relief in federal court.

This is an important victory because it confirms that people with disabilities can bring ADA suits against state officials, seeking compliance with the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark decision in Olmstead v. L.C. In Olmstead, the Supreme Court held that unjustified institutionalization of people with disabilities is discrimination under the ADA.

The impact of the 7th Circuit's decision in Bruggeman has already been felt. In Radaszewski v. Garner, another case pending before the 7th Circuit on the issue of immunity for state officials, the plaintiff sued under the ADA to obtain nursing care in his own home so that he would not have to live in a nursing home. After the decision in Bruggeman, the Illinois Attorney General recognized that the State of Illinois could no longer claim it was immune from suit under the ADA, and the Radaszewski case can now proceed on its merits rather than on immunity grounds.

Equip for Equality, Access Living and the ACLU of Illinois submitted an amicus brief in the Radaszewski case as well. =

Subscribe to the Equalizer | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use