Stay up to date on the latest news and legislative alerts in mental health law: Email   ZIP For RSS readers

News updates Supreme Court Decides Tennessee v. Lane and Jones, Upholds Civil Rights Protections for People with Disabilities Supreme Court to Hear Key Disability Rights Case Events Highlight Key Supreme Court Case on Disability Rights

Court documents Briefs The Supreme Court's Decision

More resources Bazelon Center's statement on the decision in Tenn. v. Lane Statement on Tenn. v. Lane: Jim Ward, National Coalition for Disability Rights/ADA Watch

Tennessee v. Lane and Jones

At issue in State of Tennessee v. George Lane and Beverly Jones, was whether Congress had the constitutional authority to require states to pay money damages for violations of Title II of the ADA. A negative ruling might have suggested that Congress did not have the power to enact many of the core provisions of Title II and diminish plaintiffs' ability to enforce their civil rights in court. On May 17, 2004, the Court decided in favor of people with disabilities, ruling that Tennessee could be sued for damages under Title II for failing to provide access to the courts.

Background

Plaintiffs George Lane and Beverly Jones, both with mobility impairments, sued Tennessee for failing to ensure that courthouses are accessible to individuals with disabilities. Both plaintiffs were denied access to courtrooms on the second floors of buildings lacking elevators. One plaintiff, Beverly Jones, worked as a court reporter. The other, George Lane, was a defendant in a criminal case. The state arrested Lane for failure to appear when he refused to crawl or be carried up the stairs.

Lane and Jones filed suit under Title II of the ADA in 1998. The Tennessee Attorney General moved to dismiss the case on sovereign immunity grounds, arguing that Congress did not have the authority to subject the state of Tennessee to suit. The U.S. District Court denied the state's motion and ruled that the case could go forward. The Tennessee Attorney General appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which affirmed the trial court's decision, and again said that the case could proceed. The Tennessee Attorney General then appealed again – this time to the United States Supreme Court. Five years after filing their lawsuit, Lane and Jones have yet to have their day in court.

Since the Supreme Court's decision in University of Alabama v. Garrett, which held that individuals could not sue the state for money damages under the employment provisions of the ADA, the federal appellate courts have been split over whether private individuals can sue the state for money damages under ADA Title II. In five appellate circuits, covering 24 states, the courts have ruled that individuals with disabilities can NOT sue their states under Title II. In three other circuits, covering 10 states (including Tennessee), the courts have ruled that individuals can sue for money damages only under very limited circumstances, namely, in cases implicating constitutional concerns. Thus, many Americans with disabilities currently are barred from suing a state for money damages under Title II of the ADA . And there is nothing Congress can do to rectify this problem.

The Supreme Court granted cert on June 23, 2003 and heard oral arguments on January 13th, 2004. The case is No. 02-1667. The Court ruled in favor of Lane and Jones on May 17, 2004 (see the table to the right for more information).

Briefs

All briefs below are posted in PDF file format. For your convenience, we have also provided alternate versions for many of these briefs.

Brief of the Respondents
This brief—filed on behalf of George Lane and Beverly Jones—argues that Title II's requirement that state courts be accessible to people with disabilities reasonably protects the rights of people with disabilities to have access to the courts and that, as a whole, Title II reasonably protects people with disabilities from exclusion from state activities. View an unformatted HTML version of this brief...

U.S. Department of Justice Brief in Support of the Constitutionality of Title II
The U.S. Department of Justice argues in this brief for the constitutionality of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. View an unformatted HTML version of this brief...

Amicus Briefs in Support of Lane and Jones

Brief of Minnesota and Other States
In this brief—filed by Minnesota, Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, Missouri, New Mexico, New York, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin—states argue that Congress had authority to abrogate to abrogate state immunity to enact the Americans with Disabilities Act. View an unformatted HTML version of this brief...

Brief of Kansas and Delaware
Kansas and Delaware argue in this brief for the constitutionality of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. View an unformatted HTML version of this brief...

History Brief
This brief filed by the Bazelon Center, the Paralyzed Veterans of America and 26* more advocacy and professional organizations details the history of discrimination against people with disabilities. View an unformatted HTML version of this brief...

* ADAPT, the National Spinal Cord Injury Association and the Polio Society joined the brief by letter.

Brief on behalf of the Honorable Richard Thornburgh, the National Organization on Disability, the American Association of People with Disabilities and ADA Watch
This brief, filed by the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund and the Employment Law Center, argues that the ADA is an appropriate law to reverse historical discrimination against people with disabilities, but that its effectiveness is threatened by ongoing state challenges to the laws constitutionality. View an unformatted HTML version of this brief...

State Laws Brief
This brief filed by the National Association of Protection and Advocacy Systems (NAPAS) describes the inadequacy of state laws to address the many types of discrimination faced by people with disabilities. View an unformatted HTML version of this brief...

Civil Rights Brief
This filed by brief by Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law and other civil rights organizations argues for the importance of Title II in protecting the civil rights of people with disabilities. View an unformatted HTML version of this brief...

Courthouse Brief
This brief filed by the American Bar Association describes how states have denied people with disabilities full access to courthouses. View an unformatted HTML version of this brief...

Brief of the Blanche Fischer Foundation
This brief by the Blanche Fischer Foundation describes historical state support for discrimination against people with disabilities. View an unformatted HTML version of this brief...

Briefs in Support of Tennessee

Brief of the State of Tennessee (Petitioner's Brief)*
This brief argues that Congress did not have the authority to violate states' "sovereign immunity" when it enacted Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. View a text version of this brief...

Brief of States Supporting Tennessee's Position (Amici Curiae)*
This brief—filed by the Attorney Generals of Alabama, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Utah and Wyoming—also argues that Congress does not have the authority to require states to make public buildings and services accessible to people with disabilities. View a text version of this brief...