Tennessee v. Lane - Opinion Announcement

Argument of Justice Stevens

Mr. Stevens: The second case I have to announce is Tennessee against Lane.

Respondents are paraplegics who use wheelchairs for mobility.

They claim that the State of Tennessee has failed to provide them with reasonable access to several County courthouses.

They have filed suit against the State and a number of its counties pursuant to Title II of the American with Disabilities Act, which forbids public entities from discriminating against persons with disabilities in the administration of public services.

They sought both money damages and equitable relief.

The State moved to dismiss the suit invoking the State’s Eleventh Amendment immunity from private suits for money damages.

The District Court denied the motion.

While the case was pending on appeal, this Court issued its decision in Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama against Garrett which held that the Eleventh Amendment bars private suits for money damages under Title I of the ADA, the Title that prohibits employment discrimination against the disabled.

Garrett left opened the question whether suits for money damages are permitted under Title II.

In answering that question in this case, the Sixth Circuit held that the Eleventh Amendment did not bar respondent’s suit.

We granted certiorari and now affirm.

It is well settled that Congress can abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity when it acts pursuant to its authority under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to enforce the substantive guarantees of that Amendment.

The primary question in this case is whether Title II constitutes a valid exercise of Congress Section 5 power.

In Garrett, we held that Title I was not a valid section five enforcement legislation because its broad remedial scheme was insufficiently targeted to remedy or prevent constitutional violations.

We concluded that disability based classification are valid under the Fourteenth Amendment if they bare a rational relationship to a legitimate government purpose and if the states were not engaging in a pattern of irrational employment discrimination against the disabled.

Title II differs from Title I in several respects.

Whereas Title I aims primarily at employment discrimination in the private sector, Title II aims that the whole range of public services in the public sector.

Most important, it seeks to enforce not only the constitutional prohibition on an irrational discrimination but also a number of other fundamental constitutional rights.

Infringements of these rights, including the right of access to the courts, that is at issue in this case, are subject to a heightened standard of judicial review.

Moreover, Congress had ample reason to think that legislative action was needed to remedy or prevent violation of these rights.

Judicial decisions, the legislative records, congressional hearing testimony, and anecdotal evidence, all describe a pattern of pervasive unequal treatment of the disabled in the administration of public services and programs including the systematic deprivation of fundamental constitutional rights.

The question then is whether Title II is, in the language of this Court’s Section 5 cases, a congruent and proportional response to this pattern of discriminatory treatment.

Title II, unlike other statutes we have reviewed for validity under Section five, does not seek to enforce just one constitutional provision but reaches a wide array of official conduct in an effort to enforce an equally wide array of constitutional rights.

We therefore go no further than the precise question that this case presents.

Whether Title II appropriately enforces the constitutional right have access to the court?

We hold that it does.

Title II requires public entities to make reasonable modifications to permit persons with disabilities to participate in judicial proceedings.

This duty to make reasonable accommodations is perfectly consistent with the well-establish principle that states must afford all individuals a meaningful right to be heard in court.

So, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.

Justice Souter has filed a concurring opinion in which Justice Ginsburg joined: Justice Ginsburg has also filed a concurring opinion in which Justice Souter and Justice Breyer joined; The Chief Justice has filed a dissenting opinion which Justice Kennedy and Justice Thomas joined; Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas have also filed dissenting opinions.