ADA Breaks Into Prison System
by Chuck Campbell
The Supreme Court has
unanimously ruled that the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
applies to state prisons, “at least
insofar as it reaches conduct that could also be challenged under
the Fourteenth Amendment,” according to the Bazelon Center
for Mental Health Law. The petitioner’s brief in the case of
Goodman v. Georgia notes:
“The State has
confined Goodman to a 12-foot by 3-foot cell for twenty-three to
twenty-four hours each day because of the inaccessibility of other
facilities in the Georgia State Prison. The cell is too narrow
to permit him to turn his wheelchair around. And because the bed
in his cell is inaccessible, Goodman is often forced to sleep in
his wheelchair or risk injury in transferring to his bed.
“The State has
not provided Goodman with accessible sanitary facilities. He has
on a number of occasions experienced significant injuries (including
broken bones) while attempting to transfer from his wheelchair
to the toilet in his cell.”
Bazelon reports: “… he
was forced to sit in his own feces and urine.”
At issue was whether a state prison inmate can sue for money damages
under ADA Title II.
The state of Georgia
did not seriously contest Goodman’s right
to seek injunctive relief. An injunction is an order to stop doing
something. The only cost is that engendered by the change in future
behavior. Money damages, including possible punitive damages, can
be enormously expensive, and they apply retroactively. The availability
of money damages provides a greater incentive for compliance with
ADA.
An injunction by the Supreme Court would theoretically compel states
to provide accessible facilities for paraplegic inmates. However,
the somewhat greater cost of doing this might lead states that, for
instance, provide wider cells, not to comply. They could argue that
the circumstances were different, and if they lost in the courts,
the only expense would be that of providing accessible facilities
in the future. Should such a case go again to the Supreme Court,
which takes years, the state would retain funds saved by denying
accessible facilities while the suit was pending?
Availability of money damages, which can amount to millions of dollars,
provides the states an incentive to avoid lawsuits by complying with
all ADA requirements, including those applicable to inmates with
other physical and mental disabilities.
In its brief, the State
of Georgia argued: “Title II of the
ADA is not validly applied to allow state prisoners to bring suits
for damages, as that title is not ‘appropriate legislation’ under
(Section) 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment.” Georgia continued,
asserting: “ … more is required before such laws of
general application can be applied to permit access to a sovereign
state’s treasury.”
ADA Title II, Section
202. “Discrimination.” reads:
“Subject to the
provisions of this title, no qualified individual with a disability
shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation
in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities
of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such
entity.”
The Fourteenth Amendment
prohibits a state from denying: “ … any
person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Its
Section 5 states: “The Congress shall have power to enforce,
by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”
The ADA is a federal
law, which the Fourteenth Amendment gives Congress the right to
enforce. The State of Georgia, however, in its brief, argued that
it has “sovereign immunity:”
“The resolution of each of these questions should lead the
Court to conclude that Congress did not validly abrogate state Eleventh
Amendment immunity as applied to the class of cases where disabled
inmates seek money damages ….”
The Eleventh Amendment reads:
“The Judicial
power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to
any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one
of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens
or Subjects of any Foreign State.”
The Supreme Court disagreed. Justice Scalia, writing for the unanimous
court:
“This enforcement power includes the power to abrogate state
sovereign immunity by authorizing private suits for damages against
the states. … Thus, insofar as Title II creates a private
cause of action for damages against the States for conduct that actually
violates the Fourteenth Amendment, Title II validly abrogates state
sovereign immunity.”
Bazelon calls the ruling “a narrow decision that leaves many
questions unanswered.” But while leaving many questions unanswered,
the Court’s decision leaves a door open— the door to
money damages. This applies to any potential suit brought under ADA.
For more information see:
www.bazelon.org
