Justices Hear Case on Scope of Disabilities Act

George Lane, who had been left in a wheelchair because of a back injury, went to a Tennessee county courthouse in 1996 to answer a misdemeanor reckless driving charge. But the courtroom was on the second floor, and there were no elevators or ramps. Lane crawled up the steps. When ordered to return for a later appearance, he refused to crawl the stairs again and was arrested.

Beverly Jones, a court reporter, had a similar problem. A paraplegic, she routinely had to be carried to the second floor to reach rural Tennessee courtrooms.

More than 30 years ago, Congress said states, schools and public colleges needed to install ramps or elevators to make their buildings accessible to the disabled. In the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, Congress went further and outlawed all discrimination against people with disabilities by state and local governments.

Yet a Tennessee lawyer came before the Supreme Court on Tuesday to argue that his state has a “sovereign immunity” that shields it from being sued by disabled persons. It was a bold argument, but one firmly based on recent high court rulings that have barred discrimination victims from suing states under some federal civil rights laws.

The case of Tennessee vs. Lane and Jones has drawn wide interest among the disabled, and the aisles of the courtroom were filled Tuesday with people in wheelchairs. Outside, angry demonstrators chanted, “Justice for all! We won’t crawl!”

“It’s outrageous that anyone should be denied their dignity because a state like Tennessee fails to comply with the ADA. It’s even more outrageous that some states would argue the law never should have applied to them in the first place,” said Jim Ward of the National Coalition for Disability Rights.

He was referring to the state’s legal argument that Congress overstepped its bounds by subjecting the 50 states to lawsuits from disabled people.

The 1990 disability discrimination law “exceeds Congress’ enforcement authority,” Tennessee’s Solicitor Gen. Michael E. Moore told the court, because the states “were not engaged in a widespread pattern of violations” against those who were blind, deaf or in a wheelchair.

Newer state buildings have ramps or elevators, he said, conceding that “the amenities required by the ADA were not present” when Lane and Jones went to the courthouses. But state officials were willing to make accommodations by moving Lane’s trial to another site and by carrying Jones to the second floor in her wheelchair.

William J. Brown, a lawyer for the two plaintiffs, urged the court to uphold Congress’ broad authority to protect civil rights. “Congress has the power to ensure all of us have rights as citizens,” he said. And “all of us have a fundamental right of access to the courts.”

His case was bolstered by the Bush administration’s Deputy Solicitor Gen. Paul D. Clement, who also urged the court to uphold the power of the federal government to protect the civil rights of disabled persons.

“Congress was reacting to a real problem,” Clements said. Disabled people have been barred from voting booths as well as courthouses, he said. And federal officials cannot be everywhere to protect their rights, so victims of discrimination must be allowed to sue, he said.

The case marks the latest clash between federal and state power at the Supreme Court.

The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says Congress has the power to pass “appropriate legislation” to enforce the civil rights of all Americans.

More recently, however, the court has struck down a series of laws that were deemed to go too far. Four years ago, for example, the court said the nation’s 5 million state employees may not sue their employers if they were fired or demoted based on age discrimination, despite the federal law that forbids such bias.

The next year, the court ruled that disabled employees of state colleges and hospitals could not sue if they were victims of discrimination, despite the 1990 law that forbade such bias. In both instances, a 5-4 majority said states had a “sovereign immunity” that protected them from such suits.

During Tuesday’s argument, Justice Antonin Scalia said he saw no constitutional reason why state agencies cannot discriminate against persons he referred to as “handicaps.” Some states “may not have made it easy for handicaps to vote,” he said, but that is not reason enough for Congress to subject states to lawsuits, he said.

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist agreed.

Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer have consistently upheld Congress’ power to enforce antidiscrimination laws.

Justice Clarence Thomas is likely to side with Rehnquist and Scalia. So the outcome will depend on Justices Sandra Day O’Connor and Anthony M. Kennedy. Both have sided with the states in past cases, but also have supported civil rights claims in other contexts.

A ruling can be expected in several months.