The Hason Case
Update: California Medical Board Drops Hason Petition
On March 7, The Supreme Court removed Hason from the argument calendar,
and it is very likely the high court will dismiss the case.
On February 28, the California Medical Board decided not to pursue its
Supreme Court petition in the Hason case. Responding to concerns about
the litigation's possible effect on the scope and enforcement of the
Americans
with Disabilities Act that had been voiced not only by California disability
rights activists, but also California Attorney General Bill Lockyer
and
Governor Gray Davis, the board voted 14-1 not to pursue the petition.
The Case
Michael Hason M.D. was denied a medical license because he had a history
of depression. Dr. Hason tried to sue the Medical Board under Title II
of the ADA, which prohibits discrimination against people with disabilities
by state and local governments. The board, a state agency, argued
that it is immune from suit under the 11th Amendment. At issue is whether
Congress had the constitutional authority to subject states to suits for
money damages under Title II of the ADA.
A negative ruling might suggest that Congress did not have the power
to enact many of the core protections in Title II, weakening a critical
legal protection for people with disabilities.
The Bazelon Center maintains this page as an online clearinghouse
for the media and for advocates concerned with defending the Americans
with Disabilities Act. Here you will find the latest news and resources
on this important case. Many of these documents are saved in PDF format
(text or HTML versions are also available); you will need to download
the free Acrobat Reader to view them
Alerts
News
- Groups Call for Grassroots Defense of Americans with Disabilities
Supreme Court case highlights ongoing threat to law’s protections
for people with disabilities, say advocates
Washington, DC (Jan. 22, 2003) - Leading national advocates for
the rights of people with disabilities are urging grassroots action
on an upcoming Supreme Court case that could have profound implications
for people who are protected by the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA). Read the Bazelon
Center/NAPAS Press Release on the Hason Case
Legal Documents*
*Formatting in text files is approximate. Please email leec@bazelon.org
to receive a faxed version of individual briefs.
Briefs to the U.S. Supreme Court by the Parties
- Brief of the United States
Without taking a position on the merits of Hason's claims, the Solicitor
General argues that application of Title II to states falls squarely
within Congress's comprehensive legislative power to prohibit, remedy,
and prevent violations of the rights secured by Section 5 of the Fourteenth
Amendment because, in enacting Title II, Congress focused its legislative
attention on the specific problem of discriminatory access to state
and local government services; it did not simply extend a policy focused
on the private sector to the government. Title II, by requiring states
to afford persons with disabilities genuinely equal access to services
and programs, is carefully designed to root out present instances of
unconstitutional discrimination, to undo the effects of past discrimination,
and to prevent future unconstitutional treatment by prohibiting discrimination
and promoting integration where reasonable. At the same time, the ADA
preserves the latitude and flexibility that states legitimately require
in the administration of their programs and services by requiring "reasonable"
modifications for "qualified individual[s]" with disabilities that do
not impose an undue burden and do not fundamentally alter the nature
or character of the governmental program. The statute is thus carefully
tailored to prohibit only state conduct that presents a substantial
risk of violating the Constitution or that unreasonably perpetuates
the exclusionary effects of the prior unconstitutional isolation and
broad denial of rights of persons with disabilities.
Brief of the United States
(PDF document)
Brief of the United States (Text
version)
Amicus Briefs in Support of Michael Hason
- Civil Right Brief
Brief of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, The National
Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium, The National Association for
the Advancement of Colored People, And The Puerto Rican Legal Defense
and Education Fund
Civil Rights Brief (PDF)
Faxed versions of the NAPAS brief are available by request. Email leec@bazelon.org
to receive this brief.
- Brief for the National Association of Protection and Advocacy
Systems
The protection and advocacy (P&A) system comprises the nation’s
largest provider of legally based advocacy services for persons with
disabilities. P&As are particularly active in providing assistance
to persons with disabilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act
(“ADA”). In this brief, the National Association of Protection
and Advocacy Systems (NAPAS) argues that discrimination against people
with disabilities has been pervasive in public services. NAPAS also
argues that, prior to enactment of the ADA and continuing today, state
legislation has failed to adequately cover discrimination by the states
in the provision of services—the specific form of discrimination
prohibited by Title II. Absent Title II, argues the brief, enforcement
of the rights of people with disabilities to access public services
would be greatly diminished.
Brief of the National Association of Protection
and Advocacy Systems (PDF)
Faxed versions of the NAPAS brief are available by request. Email leec@bazelon.org
to receive this brief.
- Brief of Matthew Kiman and Joseph Popovich
This brief was filed by Samuel Bagenstos (a professor at Harvard
Law School), Michael Gottesman (a professor at Georgetown Univ. Law
Center), and former Solicitor General Seth Waxman on behalf of amici
Matthew Kiman and Joseph Popovich, who have ADA claims pending against
state entities in the federal courts. The brief argues that the question
of whether Congress validly used its authority to pass Title II of the
ADA must be answered on an as-applied basis, looking only at the application
of Title II at issue in each case. That is, the brief urges the Supreme
Court not to uphold or strike down the entirety of Title II, but rather
to decide only whether the application of Title II that is presented
in this case is valid.
Brief of Matthew Kiman And Joseph Popovich
(PDF version)
Brief of Matthew Kiman And Joseph Popovich
(Text version)
- Brief of former Senator Robert Dole, Senators Tom Harkin and Edward
Kennedy and Representative Steny Hoyer
Federal legislators who were leaders in enactment of the ADA point
out in their introduction that the law is the culmination of more than
20 years of fact finding, study and incremental legislation to address
the widespread exclusion and segregation of Americans with disabilities.
Its successes in increasing the accessibility of public transportation,
courtrooms, city halls, voting, higher education and professional licensing
policies have begun to remedy years of state-sponsored segregation and
exclusion. Yet these hard-fought gains, and the promise of greater equality
and opportunity in the years to come, are threatened by states' ongoing
and broad-based challenges to the constitutional validity of the Act.
While this case questions Congress' authority to enact the ADA under
Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, other state-sponsored cases challenge
the Commerce Clause and the Spending Clause as authority for federal
disability rights legislation. If the Court does not take this opportunity
to uphold Title II of the ADA under Section 5, federal disability laws
that are just beginning to enable people with disabilities to participate
in critical facets of American life will be undermined before the goal
of full integration has been achieved.
Brief of former Senator Robert Dole, Senators Tom Harkin and Edward
Kennedy and Representative Steny Hoyer (PDF version)
Brief of former Senator Robert Dole, Senators
Tom Harkin and Edward Kennedy and Representative Steny Hoyer (Text
version)
- Brief of 24 National Disability Organizations
This amicus brief describes the record of state unconstitutional
conduct found in judicial decisions and the public record to confirm
what is also plain in Congress' specific statutory findings and in the
legislative history: that Congress properly exercised its power under
Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment when it abrogated the States''
Eleventh Amendment immunity for violations of Title II of the ADA. The
groups are: The American Association of People with Disabilities, The
American Association on Mental Retardation, AARP, The American Council
of the Blind, The American Diabetes Foundation, The American Network
of Community Options and Resources, The American Occupational Therapy
Association, The Anti-Defamation League, The Arc of the United States,
The Association on Higher Education and Disability, The Bazelon Center
for Mental Health Law, The Brain Injury Association of America, The
Epilepsy Foundation®, Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc.,
The National Alliance For The Mentally Ill, The National Association
for Rights Protection and Advocacy, The National Health Law Program,
The National Mental Health Association, The National Senior Citizens
Law Center, The National Spinal Cord Injury Association, The Polio Society,
Self Help for Hard of Hearing People, TASH, and The Women and AIDS Clinic
of Rutgers University School of Law.
Brief of 24 National Disability
Organizations (PDF version)
Brief of 24 National Disability
Organizations (Text version)
|
