ABA Brief

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Question Presented ....................................................... i

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................... vi

INTEREST OF THE AMICUS CURIAE ................................. 1

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ................................................ 3

ARGUMENT........................................................................... 5

I..... The Courts Must Be Accessible To All, Including Individuals With Disabilities, To Ensure The Legitimacy Of And Public Confidence In The Administration Of Justice. ......................................................................... 5

A.... The Judicial System Must Be Accessible to Individuals With Disabilities in Order to Maintain Fairness, Legitimacy, and Public Confidence in the Administration of Justice. 5

1.... To be fair, and to be perceived as fair, the judicial system must be accessible to individuals with disabilities with business before the courts. ............ 5

2.... To be fair, and to be perceived as fair, the judicial system also must be accessible to individuals with disabilities acting in other capacities, such as judges, jurors, and court personnel. 7

B.... The Lack of Equal and Effective Access to the Judicial System for Persons with Disabilities Harms Not Only Those Persons, But Also the Courts, Which Are Deprived of the Benefits of These Individuals’ Participation and Contributions. ................................... 9

II.... Persons With Disabilities Historically Have Faced And Continue To Face Exclusion From States’ Judicial Programs, Services, And Activities. 10

A.... Before Enactment Of The ADA, States Denied Persons With Disabilities Access To Judicial Programs, Services, And Activities. ........................................... 10

B.... Access To Judicial Programs, Services, And Activities Remains Inadequate Or Nonexistent For Many Individuals With Disabilities. ...................................... 12

III... Title II Of The ADA Is Essential To Ensuring That Individuals With Disabilities Have Equal And Effective Access To The Judicial System. 16

A.... The Right Of Equal And Effective Access To The Courts Is A Core Aspect Of Constitutional Guarantees And Is Essential To Ensuring The Proper Administration Of Justice. 16

B.... Because Fundamental Rights Are At Stake When Access To The Judicial System Is Denied, More Than A Rational Basis Is Necessary To Justify Exclusion. ...... 19

C.... Under Any Level Of Scrutiny, The Denial Of Meaningful Access To The Courts For Individuals With Disabilities Who Are Capable, With Or Without Reasonable Accommodations, Should Be Impermissible Under The Fourteenth Amendment. .......................... 21

D.... Title II Of The ADA’s Requirement Of Affirmative Conduct On The Part Of States Is Essential To Ensuring That Individuals With Disabilities Obtain Real, Not Merely Theoretical, Access To The Judicial System. ................................................................... 23

CONCLUSION ..................................................................... 25

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

CASES

Page(s)

Alexander v. Choate, 469 U.S. 287 (1985)............................... 24

Ballard v. United States, 329 U.S. 187 (1946)............................ 8

Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986).................................... 9

Board of Trustees v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356
(2001)................................................................... 10, 19, 22

Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371 (1971)...................... passim

Bothwell v. Republic Tobacco Co., 912 F. Supp. 1221 (D. Neb. 1995) 6

Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817 (1977)...................................... 17

Burns v. Ohio, 360 U.S. 252 (1959).................................... 18, 22

California Motor Transport Co. v. Trucking Unlimited, 404 U.S. 508 (1972) 16

Carter v. Jury Commission, 396 U.S. 320 (1970)....................... 8

Chambers v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co.,
207 U.S. 142 (1907)...................................................... 6, 16

DeLong v. Brumbaugh, 703 F. Supp. 399 (W.D. Pa. 1989)....... 11

Eckstein v. Kirby, 452 F. Supp. 1235 (E.D. Ark. 1978)............. 11

Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975)................................ 6

Gall v. Commonwealth, 702 S.W.2d 37 (Ky. 1985)................... 12

Galloway v. Superior Court, 816 F. Supp. 12 (D.D.C. 1993).... 11

Globe Newspaper v. Superior Court, 457 U.S. 596 (1982)....... 19

Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12 (1956)................................. 16, 18

Heller v. Doe, 509 U.S. 312 (1993).......................................... 20

Hill v. Shelby County, 599 F. Supp. 303 (N.D. Ala. 1984)......... 11

Jenness v. Fortson, 403 U.S. 431 (1971).................................. 25

Kroll v. St. Charles County, 766 F. Supp. 744 (E.D. Mo. 1991) 11

Lewinson v. Crews, 282 N.Y.S.2d 83 (App. Div. 1967), aff’d, 236 N.E.2d 853 (N.Y. 1968) 12

Little v. Streater, 452 U.S. 1 (1972).................................... 18, 20

M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102 (1996).................................. 18, 20

Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976)............................... 20

Mayer v. Chicago, 404 U.S. 189 (1971)................................... 22

McCray v. New York, 461 U.S. 961 (1983................................. 9

People v. Aguilar, 677 P.2d 1198 (Cal. 1984)........................... 18

Personnel Administrator v. Feeney, 442 U.S. 256 (1979)......... 23

Powers v. Ohio, 499 U.S. 400 (1991)......................................... 8

Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555 (1980) 16, 17, 19, 20

Rinaldi v. Yeager, 384 U.S. 305 (1966).................................... 18

San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1 (1973) 20

State v. Spivey, 700 S.W.2d 812 (Mo. 1985)............................. 12

Talamini v. Allstate Insurance Co., 470 U.S. 1067 (1985).......... 6

Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522 (1975)............................... 8, 9

United States ex rel. Negron v. New York, 434 F.2d 386 (2d Cir. 1970) 18

Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974)................................ 17

STATUTES

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990

...... 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq. ................................................ 2

...... 42 U.S.C. § 12101(a)(7)..................................................... 5

LEGISLATIVE MATERIALS

2 Staff of the House Committee on Education and Labor, 101st Cong., 2d Sess., Legislative History of Pub. L. No. 101-336: The Americans With Disabilities Act, 100th Cong., 2d Sess. (Comm. Print 1990) 10

ARTICLES

Edwards, Hon. Harry T., Race and the Judiciary, 20 Yale L. & Pol’y Rev. 325 (2002) 9

Jones, Maryann, And Access for All: Accommodating Individuals with Disabilities in the California Courts, 32 U.S.F. L. Rev. 75 (1997).................................................. 13

Loth, Renee, State Auditor Criticizes Courthouse Conditions, Boston Globe, Feb. 16, 1990, at 100 11

O’Connor, Hon. Sandra Day, Thurgood Marshall: The Influence of a Raconteur, 44 Stan. L. Rev. 1217 (1992)......................................................................................... 9

MISCELLANEOUS

American Bar Association, ABA Policy and Procedures Handbook (2002) 2

American Bar Association Committee on Legal Problems of the Elderly and the Committee on Mental & Physical Disability Law Recommendation, Report No. 115 (Aug. 1991) 3

American Bar Association Committee on Mental & Physical Disability Law Recommendation, Report No. 112 (Feb. 2002)........................................................................ 3

American Bar Association Goals, available at http:// www.abanet.org/about/goals.html (last visited Nov. 6, 2003)......................................................................................... 2

American Bar Association Section on Individual Rights & Responsibilities and the Young Lawyers Division, Recommendation, Report No. 128 (Aug. 1989).................. 2

Attorney General’s Commission on Disability, Final Report (Dec. 1989) 11

Brief of the American Bar Association as Amicus Curiae Supporting Respondents, in Grutter v. Bollinger, 123 S. Ct. 2325 (2003).................................................................. 7

Complaint in Curtin v. Minnesota Supreme Court, District Court Second Judicial District (filed Dec. 19, 2002) 14, 15

Complaint in Dia Xiong v. Minnesota Supreme Court, District Court Second Judicial District (filed Mar. 6, 2003)....................................................................................... 14

Complaint in Fietek v. Minnesota Supreme Court, District Court Second Judicial District (filed Jan. 17, 2003) 14

Complaint in Losing v. Minnesota Supreme Court, District Court Second Judicial District (filed Feb. 18, 2003) 14

Complaint in Vatne v. Minnesota Supreme Court, District Court Second Judicial District (filed Mar. 6, 2003) 14

Complaint in Zacharias v. Minnesota Supreme Court, District Court Second Judicial District (filed Apr. 3, 2002)....................................................................................... 14

Consent Decree and Order, Salmond v. County of Teton, No. CV-97-130-GF-LBE (D. Mont. 2000) 15

DOJ Status Report on Enforcing the ADA, Jan.-Mar. 2003, available at http://www.usdoj.gov/ crt/ada/statrpt.htm............................................................ 15

Enforcing the ADA: A Status Report from the Department of Justice, available at http:// www.usdoj.gov/crt/enforce.htm#anchor2010570 (last visited Nov. 6, 2003). 12

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, Armstrong v. Davis, C94-2307 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 22, 1999) 13

Governor’s Committee on Disability Issues and Employment: Civil and Legal Rights Subcommittee, Interim Court and Courthouse Access Project (Sept. 5, 2000)................ 13

Judicial Council of California, Subcommittee on Access for Persons with Disabilities, Access to the California State Courts: A Survey of Court Users, Attorneys and Court Personnel (Jan. 1997), available at http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/ programs/access/documents/dis_surv.pdf (last visited Nov. 6, 2003) 13

Letter from Michael J. Swanson, Esq., to Deborah L. Cochelin, Chair of the Court Improvement Committee of the Washington State Bar Ass’n, re “Court Improvement Committee WSBA” (Sept. 3, 1998) 13

New York State Commission on Quality of Care for the Mentally Disabled & the New York State Bar Ass’n Committee on Mental and Physical Disabilit