skip to content
healthlaw.org
Advanced Search

Narrow but Decisive Victory for People with Disabilities (revised Sept '04)

  • Organization: National Health Law Program
  • Document Type: Article/News
  • Creation Date: Monday, September 13, 2004
  • Submitted: Wednesday, March 09, 2005
  • Attachment: HTM
Narrow but Decisive Victory for People with Disabilities (revised September 13, 2004)

On May 17, 2004 the Supreme Court held that individuals could sue state governments for money damages when the states violated certain provisions of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Tennessee v. Lane, No. 124 S.Ct. 1978 (2004).

Title II of the ADA prohibits discrimination against people with disabilities in public programs or services and provides that states are not immune from claims under Title II. Lane involved six individuals who had been unable to access state court facilities and services because of their disabilities. The lead plaintiff, who has paraplegia, had been forced to crawl up two flights of stairs to reach the courtroom because the building had no elevator. When he refused to do the same for a second hearing, he was arrested. Lane, 124 S.Ct. at 1982. Plaintiffs filed an action for damages and equitable relief, alleging that Tennessee denied them physical access to the State’s courts in violation of Title II. Id. The state moved to dismiss the case on the grounds that Title II exceeds Congress’ legislative powers. The district court denied the motion and the state appealed. Id., at 1983. Previously, the Sixth Circuit en banc, in Popovich v. Cuyahoga County Court, 276 F.3d 808 (6th Cir. 2002), had held that ADA suits based upon equal protection principles were barred by the Eleventh Amendment, but cases based upon due process principles were not. Citing Popovich, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the denial of the state’s motion in Lane, holding that the ADA claims were not barred because they were based upon due process principles. The state petitioned for certiorari. Id. In a 5-4 decision written by Justice Stevens, the court held that, for the class of cases implicating the fundamental right of access to the courts, Title II constitutes a valid exercise of Congress' authority under § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. . .

Topics:
Login
powered by probono.net

Quick Links


What's new on HealthCareCoach.com
Understand the Health Coverage You Have

The Health Consumer Alliance