Tennessee v. Lane
Lane and Jones, who both have disabilities, sued the state of Tennessee for damages under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) because they were denied the benefit of access to the courts and excluded from courthouses and court proceedings due to their inability to access the physical facilities. Title II of the ADA prohibits government entities from denying public "services, programs and activities" to individuals on the basis of their disability. It also provides that persons who have been harmed by discrimination can seek damages, including from the states.
In University of Alabama v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356 (2001), the Supreme Court ruled that Eleventh Amendment state sovereign immunity prevented the Congress from subjecting a state to private suit under Title I of the ADA. Congress had insufficient evidence of unconstitutional discrimination by states in hiring or employing the disabled to justify enforcing the 14th Amendment through the ADA against the states. The Court expressly declined to decide the issue presented in Tennessee v. Lane: whether Title II's requirement that public "services, programs or activities" be accessible to the disabled is constitutional.
The district court denied the state's motion to dismiss. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, finding that Lane and Jones stated claims founded in due process violations and therefore the Eleventh Amendment did not bar their claims under Title II of the ADA. The Sixth Circuit held that Title II was a justified remedial measure within Congress' power under the 14th Amendment, but on the basis that Title II protects the due process rights of the disabled, rather than their rights to equal protection. Unlike the equal protection claim that had been found insufficiently supported in Garrett, the Sixth Circuit found that Congress had ample evidence of physical barriers to government buildings that were denying the disabled access to courthouses and other vital services. This justified Congress in "ask[ing] states to weigh the fundamental importance of access to the courts to our justice system," and in concluding that "the perpetuation of the current physical barriers force people with disabilities either to forgo their right to be present in court or be carried into court, and that the remedy is often inexpensive and simple."
Question Presented:
Does Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act validly abrogate state sovereign immunity?
