WASHINGTON – Disabled people can sue if states ignore a landmark civil rights law that protects their rights, a divided Supreme Court ruled Monday in the case of a paraplegic man who crawled up the steps of a small-town courthouse because there was no elevator for his wheelchair.
The 5-4 ruling marks a limited but important endorsement of the 1990 Americans With Disabilities Act, a law meant to ensure equal treatment for the disabled in many areas of life.
Access to courts and the services they provide is a basic right, and the ADA properly gives private citizens such as George Lane the power to sue for damages if a state fails to live up to that promise, the liberal-led majority ruled.
“The unequal treatment of disabled persons in the administration of judicial services has a long history, and has persisted despite several legislative efforts to remedy the problem,” Justice John Paul Stevens wrote.
He was joined by Justices Sandra Day O’Connor, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.
Chief Justice William Rehnquist, chief architect of that states rights push, dissented in Monday’s case, as did Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas.
The ruling means Lane can return to a lower court in Tennessee, where he sought up to $100,000 in damages for what he said was humiliating treatment that violated the ADA.
Advocates for the disabled argued that the fear of hefty damage awards is a powerful tool to force state governments to follow the law.
Lane crawled up two flights of steps at a courthouse in Benton, Tenn., to face charges in a 1996 traffic case. He was arrested for failing to appear in court when he refused to either crawl or be carried for a second court appearance.
The majority of justices confined its reasoning to the relatively narrow sphere of access to courthouses and court services, although the rationale could be expanded to other areas later on.
Supreme Court action Monday
The Supreme Court also took these actions on Monday:
* Turned back an appeal from one of the first women trained to fly Navy combat jets, former Navy Lt. Carey Lohrenz, who contended an advocacy group ruined her career with a smear campaign.
* Refused to consider whether a California court improperly gave death row inmate Kevin Cooper a last-minute chance to avoid execution, to allow more DNA testing of evidence.
* Declined to consider whether Florida’s death penalty sentencing system is unconstitutional, rejecting an appeal from a man convicted of killing a convenience clerk for $23 in 1981.
* Declined to consider two challenges to affirmative action in government highway construction programs from companies in Minnesota and Nebraska.
* Made it easier for financially troubled people to go to bankruptcy court to get relief from state education loans or other debts.
Supreme Court action
The Supreme Court also took these actions on Monday:
* Turned back an appeal from one of the first women trained to fly Navy combat jets, former Navy Lt. Carey D. Lohrenz, who contended an advocacy group ruined her career with a smear campaign.
* Refused to consider whether a California court improperly gave death row inmate Kevin Cooper a last-minute chance to avoid execution, to allow more DNA testing of evidence.
* Declined to consider whether Florida’s death penalty sentencing system is unconstitutional, rejecting an appeal from a man convicted of killing a convenience clerk for $23 in 1981.
* Declined to consider two challenges to affirmative action in government highway construction programs from companies in Minnesota and Nebraska.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.