By: Peter J. Molesso
Congress sought to safeguard the rights of disabled individuals
with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”). One
of the Act’s major goals was to ensure that persons with
disabilities received equal access to public services and
programs. This right was codified in Title II of the
ADA. A recent Supreme Court decision, however, seems to pave
the way for the Court to hold in future decisions that Congress
overstepped its bounds by creating a general right to sue States
under Title II. In Tennessee v. Lane, the Court
found that Title II claims for money damages were not barred by the
Eleventh Amendment’s state immunity doctrine. The Court
limited its holding, however, to apply only to instances where
persons with disabilities are denied access to the courts.
The Supreme Court declined to address whether all claims brought
under Title II would survive state immunity challenges. The
Court’s narrow holding is significant because in Board of
Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett, decided a
few years prior to Lane, it held that claims for money damages
brought under Title I, which addresses employment discrimination,
were barred by the Eleventh Amendment. Analyzed within the
context of Garrett, it appears that the Court’s holding in
Lane severely limits the rights of persons with
disabilities. After Lane, it seems as if the only
claims based on Title II’s remedial provisions that can withstand a
state immunity challenge are those that simultaneously allege a
violation of a fundamental right, and thus trigger strict scrutiny
review.