Tennessee v. Lane Surprise 

Supreme Court narrowly holds ADA Constitutional

By Tim Wheat

“Given the sheer volume of evidence demonstrating the nature and extent of unconstitutional discrimination against persons with disabilities in the provision of public services, the dissent’s contention that the record is insufficient to justify Congress’ exercise of its prophylactic power is puzzling, to say the least.”
- No. 02-1667 Opinion of the Court [JUSTICE STEVENS] p. 17

The US Supreme Court held 5-to-4 this week that Title II of the 1990 Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) is Constitutional. This is a surprise since the similar 5-to-4 ruling in Alabama v. Garrett, the Supreme Court ruled that Title I of the ADA did not properly cancel US state’s sovereign immunity. 

"This decision reaffirms the Americans with Disabilities Act, and declares that the civil rights our nation promises to citizens should not be superseded by states' rights," said N.O.D. President Alan A. Reich. "This decision endorses rights promised by the ADA since 1990. It supports the integration of Americans with disabilities into American life. This could not come on a more appropriate day than the 50th anniversary of the Brown v. Board of Education decision that integrated the public school system."

Active conservative Justices apparently seeking to stop the Civil Rights Movement have exaggerated the significance of the Eleventh Amendment. Ratified in 1795, the Eleventh Amendment intended to limit lawsuits by citizens against state governments. Congress clearly abolished state immunity in the text of the ADA: “A State shall not be immune under the eleventh amendment of the Constitution of the United States from an action in Federal or State court…[42 USC §12202].” 

“This is good news for America” said Dick Thornburgh, U.S. Attorney General when President George H.W. Bush signed the law in 1990. “All who fought for the ADA view it as a great equalizing force for the more than 54 million citizens with disabilities. It's gratifying the Supreme Court is behind us." 

Chief Justice Rehnquist attempts to argue in dissent that Congress did not have the authority to overcome State’s sovereign immunity because of “the lack of record evidence showing that inaccessible courthouses cause actual Due Process violations [p. 18].” 

It is important to note that nowhere in the dissent is it argued that people with disabilities do not face discrimination and denial of fundamental rights by the state; only that the legislative record does not have a complete list of violations. Rehnquist notes that the “bulk of the evidence” concerns nonstate governments, but even the Chief Justice cannot burry his head in the sand to pretend that discrimination against people with disabilities does not exist.

"Unfortunately, the razor-thin margin and limited scope of the decision in Tennessee v. Lane underscores the fact that disability rights in this country hang by a thread,” said Ira Burnim, legal director at the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, a national legal advocacy group for the rights of people with mental disabilities. "Court rulings in recent years have threatened to eviscerate the Americans with Disabilities Act. While the ultimate impact of the Court's decision in Lane won't be known for years, today's ruling is an essential acknowledgement of the federal government's important role in enforcing civil rights."

The Harris Poll, which conducts surveys with N.O.D., in January found 93 percent of American adults, felt "states should be required to make court and other public buildings accessible to people with disabilities." 94 percent agreed with the statement, "Any system which forces someone to leave his or her wheelchair and crawl up stairs to get to a courthouse is totally unacceptable." Other N.O.D. polls have found overwhelmingly strong support for the ADA.

“...Congress considered a body of evidence showing that in diverse parts of our Nation, and at various levels of government, persons with disabilities encounter access barriers to public facilities and services. That record, the Court rightly holds, at least as it bears on access to courts, sufficed to warrant the barrier-lowering, dignity-respecting national solution the People’s representatives in Congress elected to order.”
- No. 02-1667 [JUSTICE GINSBURG, concurring] p. 3