United States: The ADA Extends to State and Local Governments

The United States Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision held that, under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, states are not immune to claims of denial of access to state courthouses. In Tennessee v. Lane, the plaintiff, a paraplegic who uses a wheelchair for mobility, claimed he was denied access to a Tennessee state courthouse when he was forced to crawl up two flights of stairs to attend a hearing. He sued the state. The state defended, claiming immunity under the Eleventh Amendment which bars suits by citizens against a state; a justifiable defense considering the Court recently held that states are immune from a claim under Title I of the ADA.

In Lane, the Court explained that Congress may abrogate a state’s immunity to suit through: (1) an unequivocal expression of intent; and (2) pursuant to a valid grant of constitutional authority. The Court noted that, in Title II, Congress explicitly provided that a state is not immune from an action for damages. The Court also found a valid grant of authority, referring to the Fourteenth Amendment that impliedly authorizes legislation to remedy or deter violations of substantive rights. Moreover, the Court concluded that Title II was an "appropriate remedial and preventative" measure as there is a historical record of irrational discrimination against disabled persons and Title II is a proportionally appropriate response to remedy and prevent that discrimination.

The dissent in Lane noted the lack of evidence that historically disabled persons were denied constitutionally protected access to judicial proceedings. The evidence relied on by the majority to establish a record of discrimination included a broad category of historical discrimination through laws restricting a disabled person’s right to marry, vote, and receive public education. This type of broad anecdotal and categorical evidence, the dissent argued, was exactly the type found to be too general to be reliable when the Court found states to be immune from suit for violations of Title I. The dissent noted that, on close examination, there was no evidence that lack of access to courthouses was even considered by Congress or brought forward in committee testimony during the drafting of the ADA.

The Lane decision is narrow; it only applies to states when it is found that the state has denied a disabled person access to judicial proceedings. However, it follows that other constitutionally protected rights may be protected in the same manner, and, if so, the Court will either necessarily limit the Lane abrogation of sovereign immunity to denial of access to the judicial system, or expand the holding to create liability for denial of other fundamental rights on the basis of disability.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.