Supreme Court Ruling Strengthens ADA

For several years we have been lamenting the fact that the Supreme Court has consistently been handing down rulings that weaken the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). It seems obvious to me that many of these decisions have contradicted Congress' intent when it passed the ADA back in 1990. The 2001 ruling that exempts states from employment discrimination suits stands out as an example.

The current case is Tennessee v. Lane, No. 02-1667. You may remember George Lane as a paraplegic who was cited for traffic violations back in 1998. When he showed up for his arraignment on the second floor of the Polk County Courthouse, he discovered that the building lacked an elevator. So he dragged himself up the flight of stairs to the second floor. When he returned for a pre-trial hearing, he refused to do so again and was arrested for failing to appear in court.

So Mr. Lane sued for discrimination under the ADA.

What's interesting here is the question of whether or not the ADA can be enforced. Although it makes certain actions illegal, the ADA includes no enforcement provision.

It's illegal to not pay your taxes. Congress really means that, because they created the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to make your life miserable if you fail to comply. And you can bet that the IRS will be on you very quickly if you don't pay your taxes. But there's no corresponding enforcement agency for the ADA. That's why the Polk County Courthouse can remain inaccessible for eight years. It had to be pretty obvious to lots of folks that there was no elevator; it's not too big a leap to realize that the absence violates the ADA. But because there is no enforcement provision, there's no need for the state to comply with the law. How serious was Congress about enforcing YOUR rights when it omitted ADA enforcement?

So how does the ADA get enforced? The discrimination victim has to initiate action, and that's precisely what Mr. Lane did; he sued the state of Tennessee. The state admits that it has an obligation to provide access and that Congress has the authority to require access under the ADA. The issue is whether Mr. Lane can sue the state for damages, as provided by the ADA.

Now, to you and me (at least to me) it seems like a no-brainer! Of course he has that right! Apparently it's not so clear to others, because most people "in the know" expected the Supreme Court to rule against Mr. Lane. It's the same court that ruled that states can't be sued for discriminating against people with disabilities in employment issues, so why would anyone expect them to rule in favor of people with disabilities in this case?

The turnaround happened because Justice Sandra Day O'Conner seems to have switched sides in the ADA debate. She joined Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter, and John Paul Stevens in voting to put some teeth in the ADA. (In the 2001 decision, Justice O'Conner voted with the majority to limit ADA enforcement rights.)

Justices Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas joined Chief Justice William Rehnquist in voting to further restrict your ADA rights. Chief Justice Rehnquist stated that courtroom inaccessibility isn't necessarily a constitutional violation.

I'm hoping that this is the start of a new trend in this country. For all the talk about disability rights and equality and empowerment and compassion, I believe that people with disabilities have suffered considerable setbacks in their quest for functionally equivalent accommodations, and that they are in many ways no better off or even worse off than they were a few years ago.

I frankly don't understand how anyone in 21st century America can oppose equal access for all.