Application of ADA to States Contested in Federal Courts
In the following ABA Journal article, David Hudson describes a
recent Federal Circuit Court of Appeals that has affirmed that individuals can
sue a state for money damages under Title II of the ADA. This approach conflicts
with other federal circuit courts that have followed the Supreme Court's Garrett
ruling in saying that Congress exceeded its authority in enabling individuals to
sue states for money damages.
Hudson believes the disputes at the circuit level (one step below the U.S.
Supreme Court) will prompt the Supreme Court to take a case to settle the issue.
Given the court's recent track record on the ADA, that doesn't necessarily bode
well.
A broader implication of the article is the importance of judicial appointments.
Federal judges (who are appointed for life), whether at the District Court,
Court of Appeals, or Supreme Court level, are profoundly shaping the future of
disability rights in America. Disability advocates should remain vigilant in
tracking (and seeking to influence) the judicial nomination and confirmation
process by the President and the Senate.
Jonathan Young, PhD
JFA Editor, AAPD
===============================
"ADA SUIT AGAINST STATE ALLOWED"
1st Circuit Ruling Underlines Rift Over States' Immunity
BY DAVID L. HUDSON
Recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions have reinforced states' immunity to many
private suits filed under federal law. But the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
just took the opposite approach, allowing New Hampshire to be sued under the
Americans With Disabilities Act.
The Boston-based court has ruled that private individuals can sue a state for
money damages under Title II (public services) of the ADA if they allege facts
sufficient to state a constitutional violation.
Beginning in 1996, the supreme court has limited individuals from suing states
under various federal laws. In these decisions, the court has ruled that
Congress exceeded its constitutional authority by approving statutes that
violate the doctrine of state sovereign immunity under the 11th Amendment. That
amendment generally prohibits citizens from suing a state for monetary damages
without its consent.
Last year, the court ruled in a suit against the University of Alabama that
Congress exceeded its authority in abrogating, or ending, a state's 11th
Amendment immunity and allowing suits by private individuals under ADA Title I
(private and public employment). The court declined to rule whether individuals
could sue states for money damages under Title II. Board of Trustees of the
University of Alabama v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356 (2001).
However, on Aug. 20, a panel of the 1st Circuit decided 2-1 that Matthew Kiman,
a former prison inmate, could sue the New Hampshire Department of Corrections
under Title II because he had alleged facts sufficient to state a constitutional
claim. Kiman v. New Hampshire Department of Corrections
<http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1099.01A>, No.
02-1099.
Kiman, who suffers from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, also known as Lou
Gehrig's disease, alleged that prison officials:
* Refused to give him a cane so that he could walk.
* Refused to provide a chair for him to take showers.
* Placed him in a third-floor cell, even though he had great difficulty climbing
stairs.
In December 2001, a federal district court dismissed Kiman's suit, basing its
decision on Garrett.
However, the appeals panel majority determined that Congress had the authority
to subject states to Title II suits in situations where "the facts of the
statutory claim also make out a constitutional one."
"Our basis for distinguishing Garrett from this case ... is that this case on
its facts involves a constitutional violation," Judge Sandra L. Lynch explained
in her majority opinion. According to Lynch, Kiman has alleged facts that would
amount to violations of the Eighth Amendment because, if true, prison officials
showed a deliberate indifference to his medical needs.
Judge Juan R. Torruella dissented, writing that "such a suit is barred by the
proscriptions of the 11th Amendment."
The decision further divides the federal appeals courts on this issue. Relying
on the Garrett decision, the 5th and 10th Circuits have determined that the
states are immune from Title II private suits. On the other side, the 9th
Circuit, in a decision before Garrett, has ruled Congress could validly end
state immunity under section 5 of the 14th Amendment, which empowers Congress to
pass "appropriate legislation" to enforce constitutional rights. The 2nd and 6th
Circuits have taken a middle-of-the-road approach, allowing some Title II ADA
suits against states for certain violations, including actions "motivated by
discriminatory animus or ill will based on the plaintiff's disability" or "as
enforcement of the due process clause."
For this reason, some disability law experts believe the supreme court will take
a case to resolve the circuit split. Gary Phelan, a Connecticut lawyer and
author of a leading text on disability law, says the "issue is ripe for supreme
court review."
"This opinion will lead to greater uncertainty among litigants over whether you
can bring a claim against the state for money damages," says Andrew B. Livernois,
the assistant attorney general for New Hampshire who argued the case. "This
opinion adds to the confusion."
Livernois says the state is "actively exploring the possibility" of asking the
nation's top court to hear the case.
©2002 ABA Journal
# # #
=====================
November 5, 2002, is Election Day!
Vote!
Vote for a strong ADA!
Vote for disability rights!
Tell your friends and family to vote!
=====================
JUSTICE FOR ALL -- A Service of the American
Association of People with Disabilities
www.aapd-dc.org
www.jfanow.org
There's strength in numbers! Be a part of a national coalition
of people with disabilities and join AAPD today.
www.aapd-dc.org
Last Updated on
02/20/2005
webmaster@namiscc.org
