Advertising
anchor link to jump to start of content

The Seattle Times Company NWclassifieds NWsource seattletimes.com
seattletimes.com Nation/World Home delivery Contact us Search archives
Your account  Today's news index  Weather  Traffic  Movies  Restaurants  Today's events
  NWCLASSIFIEDS
  NWSOURCE
  SHOPPING
  SERVICES





Tuesday, May 18, 2004 - Page updated at 12:00 A.M.

Justices rule states not immune from disabilities act

By Stephen Henderson
Knight Ridder Newspapers

E-mail E-mail this article
Print Print this article
Print Search archive
Most e-mailed articles Most e-mailed articles
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court upheld a key provision of the Americans with Disabilities Act yesterday, siding with a paraplegic who sued Tennessee after he was forced to drag himself up the steps of a courthouse that didn't have elevators.

The justices said Congress was responding to "systematic deprivations of fundamental rights" when it passed the ADA, and its authority to remedy those wrongs overrides states' constitutional protection against lawsuits.

The ruling gives teeth to Title II of the ADA, which requires that state and local governments provide access to services for the disabled.

"It is not difficult to perceive the harm that Title II is designed to address," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the court majority. "Congress enacted Title II against a backdrop of pervasive unequal treatment in the administration of state services and programs."

The 5-4 ruling split along the court's well-known political divide, with justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter, Stephen Breyer and Sandra Day O'Connor joining Stevens in the majority. Chief Justice William Rehnquist and justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Anthony Kennedy dissented. Five separate concurring or dissenting opinions accompanied the ruling.

In his dissent, Rehnquist said the majority had failed to show that inaccessible courthouses had resulted in truly widespread violations of disabled people's constitutional rights by the states.

The decision is surprising in part because the high court has limited the ADA's scope since it was passed in 1990. In a key 2001 ruling, the justices exempted states from lawsuits under Title I of the ADA, which prohibits employment discrimination against the disabled. The decision is also a key departure from others in recent cases that have championed the power of states over the federal government.

O'Connor made the difference in yesterday's ruling by switching sides in the ongoing argument over the ADA. In 2001, she sided with the conservative majority in the 5-4 ruling against holding states responsible under Title I but joined the more liberal justices in yesterday's narrow decision.

"We're pleasantly surprised," said Andrew Imparato, president and chief executive officer of the American Association of People with Disabilities. "And the fact that the ruling came down on the 50th anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education is all the better. I'm glad Justice O'Connor is finally recognizing Congress' authority to enforce these laws."

Imparato said advocates should be cautious in their optimism. The ruling only guarantees access to courthouses, he said, and leaves open questions about accessibility to many other state facilities.

The case began in 1998 when George Lane and Beverly Jones, both paraplegics who use wheelchairs, sued Tennessee and several counties for not providing handicapped access. Lane crawled the stairs of the Polk County Courthouse to be arraigned on traffic charges in a second-floor courtroom. When he later refused to do the same for a pretrial hearing, he was arrested for failing to appear in court.
 
advertising
Jones was a court reporter who said that lack of access to court buildings in the state made it impossible for her to do her job.

Tennessee agreed that it had an obligation to provide access and that Congress had the authority to enforce that obligation through the ADA. But it said Congress illegally broached the states' 11th Amendment protections by saying they could be sued for failure to comply.

Lane and his lawyers said Congress was within its powers.

Also yesterday, the court:

Refused to consider whether a California court improperly gave death-row inmate Kevin Cooper a last-minute chance to avoid execution, to allow more DNA testing.

Rejected Mumia Abu-Jamal's latest appeal of his conviction for the 1981 murder of a Philadelphia police officer.

Declined to consider whether Florida's death-penalty sentencing system is unconstitutional.

Turned back an appeal from one of the first women trained to fly Navy combat jets, former Navy Lt. Carey Lohrenz, who contended an advocacy group ruined her career with a smear campaign.

Material from The Associated Press is included in this report.

Copyright © 2004 The Seattle Times Company

E-mail E-mail this article
Print Print this article
Print Search archive

More nation & world headlines...

 NATION/WORLD NEWS
 SEARCH

Today Archive

Advanced search

 
advertising

seattletimes.com home
Home delivery | Contact us | Search archive | Site map | Low-graphic
NWclassifieds | NWsource | Advertising info | The Seattle Times Company

Copyright

Back to topBack to top