US SUPREME COURT RULES IN FAVOR OF DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES IN TENNESSEE V LANE IN LANDMARK DECISION TODAY

SACRAMENTO -  The United States Supreme Court  in a narrow decision, ruled 5-4 in favor of disability rights advocates in what could be a landmark decision, in Tennessee v. Lane,  in an announcement made today in Washington, DC.   The case is Tennessee v. Lane, 02-1667. [a copy of the decision is available on the CDCAN website]. Disability advocates in California, who launched protests in January when the case was first heard in the high court, with a "crawl for justice" rally in Sacramento, and other cities across the nation, hailed the decision.

The high court  upheld the rights of people with disabilities under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act,  ruling that a person, George Lane, a person with disabilities,  who had to crawl up the steps of a small-town courthouse in Tennessee for a court hearing, can sue the state because of the lack of access.  While the high court's majority appeared to limit its ruling to courthouses and court services, some advocates believe the decision could be used to allow private suits on other grounds, including class action suits filed in several other states, including California.

The federal Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA)  guarantees against discrimination on the job, and requires that public buildings and public services be open and accessible to people with disabilities.

The decision was a surprise to many observers, who expected possibly that the US Supreme Court would rule in favor of Tennessee and narrow further the scope of the Americans With Disabilities Act. The US Supreme Court has, in recent years,
ruled to narrow the reach of the ADA in narrow decision.

BACKGROUND OF TENNESSEE V. LANE
* George Lane, a person with disabilities, brought a suit in 1998 against the State of Tennessee because the courthouse in Polk County had no elevator, forcing him to crawl up two flights of stairs on his hands and knees to make a morning court date regarding a traffic ticket. When the court delayed his appearance for later that afternoon, Lane refused to return to crawl up the stairs a second time, and was arrested for failing to appear and then jailed.  Lane was working two jobs when he got into a car accident that led to his court appearance.  Lane who was previously arrested several times for minor drug, alcohol and traffic offenses, is reportedly in state prison for assault.  Lane said at that time the judge and court house employees "stood at the top of the stairs and laughed at me".
* Beverly Jones a woman with disabilities who uses a wheelchair,  is a court reporter in Tennessee and single mother of two, joined the suit because many court houses in Tennessee were not accessible for persons with disabilities and said that "it is very difficult and almost impossible for us to get to the places we need just to conduct our daily business". She mentioned a court hour where a judge had to pick her up and place her on a toilet because the courthouse had no accessible restroom.  In a different courthouse, a court employee wo had to carry her upstairs because the courthouse had no elevator, slipped and nearly injured her.
* Citing that court personnel were willing to physically carry Lane up the stairs, Tennessee Solicitor General Michael Moore said outside US Supreme Court building on January 13,  that "every single interaction he [Lane] had with the court system in Polk County - accommodations were offered to him and he refused every single one of them because he was bound and determined to create the proverbial federal case."  Moore added that the issue is "...where the line gets drawn between federal power and state sovereignty."
* Jones sharply disagreed saying that  states who expect that people with disabilities should  rely on the help of strangers or other persons to be carried up stairs is not right or in compliance with the provisions of ADA that require access into public buildings asserting that "I don't believe it is reasonable to ask another person to carry me up the stairs or to carry anyone up the stairs".  She believed that states failing to comply are liable for damages.
* A third plaintiff, Ralph Ramsey, was a defendant in a civil suit in Tennessee. There was no elevator to reach the second floor courtroom where his case was pending - and Ramsey sent word to the judge that he no way to get there.  The judge ordered the case to proceed without him and he lost the case.
* Lane, Jones and Ramesy filed the suit in 1998 against the State of Tennessee under Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act, alleging that several courthouses in the state were inaccessible to people who use wheelchairs.
* They filed suit under Title II of the ADA, which prohibits governmental entities from denying public services, programs and activities to individuals on the basis of their disability. Title II also provides that persons with disabilities who have been harmed by discrimination can seek damages from governmental entities, including the states.
* Tennessee argued in January that it was protected from ADA lawsuits by the Constitution, which grants sovereign immunity to states from damage suits brought by individuals. The 11th Amendment in the US Constitution bars lawsuits against states brought by "...citizens of another state, or by citizens or subjects of a foreign state."
* Over 25 different national disability organizations filed briefs in support of the Lane and Jones including AARP, American Association on Mental Retardation, American Council of the Blind, American Diabetes Association, the Arc of the United States, Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, Depression and Bipolar Support Alliance, Easter Seals, Epilepsy Fondation, National Alliance for the Mentally Ill, National Assocation for Rights Protection and Advocacy, National Association of Councils on Developmental Disabilities, National Council on Independent Living, National Multiple Sclerosis Society, Tennessee Disability Coalition, United Cerebral Palsy.

HOW THIS CASE - AND DECISION IMPACTS PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES
* Disability advocates said that the key question that the US Supreme Court decision addressed was whether the US Congress has the power to override, the states' immunity from lawsuits and authorizes plaintiffs (like Lane and Jones) to seek damages from the State under Title II of the ADA.  This potentially has impact on many class action lawsuits pending in many states - including possibly cases in California (Sanchez v. Johnson, Capitol People First v. DDS, and also a pending suit by Medi-Cal providers against the state of California)
* Legal observers say that the narrow decision is a reflection of how deeply divided the US Supreme Court is on the larger issues of  the constitutionality of the damages remedy under Title II of the ADA 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 specific
situations.
* If the high court would have ruled in favor of Tennessee, some advocates felt it it would have significantly limited the remedies under ADA Title II  to only recognized constitutional violations or to violations based on the Due Process Clause would impose limitations on the reach of the remedy because it would exclude situations where the states have demonstrated a record of discrimination on the basis of disability,  and where Congress was well within its power to legislate under the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution.

WHAT THE COURT DECIDED
* US Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, appointed in 1975 by President Ford, wrote as part of today's decision that "The unequal treatment of disabled persons in the administration of judicial services has a long history..." that has persisted despite various statutues, including the Americans With Disabilities Act.  Stevens further wrote in the decision that "It is not difficult to perceive the harm that Title II is designed to address."
* The US Supreme Court's decision said that there was more than enough evidence of discrimination when it wrote
the part of the law at issues in Lane's case. The Americans With Disabilities Act Title II  guarantees that people with disabilaities  will have access to government services
* Those US Supreme Court Justices ruling in favor of George Lane and disability advocates were Justices John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.
* Those dissenting were Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M.  Kennedy and Clarence Thomas.  Rehnquist, a Reagan appointee, wrote in a dissenting opinion that  "Congress utterly failed to identify any evidence that disabled persons were denied constitutionally protected access to judicial proceedings,"
Justice Scalia, considered the Court's most conservative member, wrote in a dissenting opinion that  the ruling will open the door to more lawsuits and that promotes judges to act like legislators.  Scalia wrote that "...Requiring access for disabled persons to all public buildings cannot remotely be considered a means of `enforcing' the Fourteenth Amendment...It is past time to draw a line limiting the uncontrolled spread of a well-intentioned textual distortion..."

RECENT COURT DECISIONS NARROWING ADA SCOPE
* The US Courts of Appeal and the US Supreme Court - even with this major decision, is a reflection of how deeply divided on two other possible sources of congressional power to require access according to advocates:  the federal Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and actions against state officials based on the Commerce Clause.
* In a related lawsuit  3  years ago, the US Supreme Court ruled that states cannot be sued by their own employees for failing to comply with the federal Americans With Disabilities  guarantee against discrimination in the workplace.  In that narrow 5-4 ruling, the high court ruled that while the US Congress can override the states' usual sovereign immunity in the US Constitution (14th Amendment)  in certain unusual circumstances, it did not demonstrate why that step was necessary in the case of a nurse demoted after breast cancer treatment.
* In Tennessee v. Lane, the state argued that the same reasoning in the previous decision applied to private suits over the ADA's separate guarantee of access to public services and buildings.
* Advocates feared, given the recent US Supreme Court rulings on ADA, that the Court would uphold the state's position.  Justice Sandra Day O'Connor joined the majority in supporting George Lane, abandoning - at least for now - the court's most coservative members on this issue impacting the rights of people with disabilities.