NCD #04-447
January 12, 2004
Contact: Mark S. Quigley
202-272-2004
202-272-2074 TTY
mquigley@ncd.gov

National Council on Disability Statement on Tennessee v. Lane: Access to Government Services for People with Disabilities at Stake

WASHINGTON--On January 13, the Supreme Court of the United States will conduct oral argument in Tennessee v. Lane (02-1667). Few cases are more compelling than a person in a wheelchair who has to crawl up the courthouse steps to participate in court proceedings, as did the plaintiff in this case. The National Council on Disability (NCD), in first proposing and then drafting the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), worked closely with Congress in crafting Title II of the ADA to prevent just the type of discrimination experienced by Mr. Lane.

In 1998, George Lane and Beverly Jones brought a lawsuit against the State of Tennessee under Title II of the ADA alleging that several courthouses in the state were inaccessible to people who use wheelchairs. Title II prohibits governmental entities from denying public services, programs and activities to individuals on the basis of their disability. In addition, it provides that people who have been discriminated against on the basis of disability can seek damages from governmental entities, including states. The state of Tennessee argued that it was protected from ADA lawsuits by the Constitution, which grants sovereign immunity to states from damage suits brought by individuals.

Much is at stake in Lane. The courts of appeals are deeply divided about the constitutionality of the damages remedy under Title II and about the basic question of whether the power of Congress to override sovereign immunity should be determined for Title II overall or only for certain applications. Limiting the Title II remedy to recognized constitutional violations or to violations based on the Due Process Clause would impose arbitrary limitations on the reach of the remedy because it would exclude situations where Congress was well within its power to legislate under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, and where the states have demonstrated a record of invidious discrimination on the basis of disability. Not only would such a ruling weaken the effectiveness of Title II by eliminating the ability of plaintiffs to obtain damages against the states, it would eliminate one of the fundamental bases of congressional power to require the states to provide access to public facilities. While there are two other possible sources of congressional power to require access-Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, based on the Spending Clause, and injunctive actions against state officials based on the Commerce Clause-these sources of congressional power are also under attack and subject to many of the same theoretical debates about the federalism framework that have deeply divided the current Court. Thus, the result in Lane could have implications far beyond the damages remedy and even beyond Title II itself.

According to a friend-of-the-court brief filed by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) in this matter, "In Title II, Congress formulated a statute that, much like federal laws combating racial and gender discrimination, is carefully designed to root out present instances of unconstitutional discrimination, to undo the effects of past discrimination, and to prevent future unconstitutional treatment by prohibiting discrimination and promoting integration where reasonable." As such, DOJ concludes that "application of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act to States and their subdivisions falls squarely within Congress's comprehensive legislative power under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to prohibit, remedy, and prevent violations of the rights secured by that Amendment."

NCD's policy paper, Tennessee v. Lane: The Legal Issues and Implications for People with Disabilities discusses the case and the constitutional and policy issues it raises. The paper examines the Lane case in the context of the recent trend in Supreme Court decisions limiting the power of Congress to regulate the states. It is clear that the Supreme Court should decide that Title II does override the states' sovereign immunity and that these plaintiffs can seek damages from the State of Tennessee.

For more information, contact Mark Quigley or Jeff Rosen at 202-272-2004 or 202-272-2074 (TTY).