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

More on Judge Boyle Take Action: Tell your Senator to vote against Boyle Reasons to Reject Terrence Boyle’s Nomination Terrence Boyle's Record on Disability Issues

Reasons to Reject Terrence Boyle’s Nomination

Never has ruled in favor of a plaintiff under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in a published ruling during the 15 years that the ADA has been in effect. Boyle has heard a sizeable number of ADA cases during this time. When pressed on this issue at his hearing he could only cite one unpublished case United States v. Quality Built Construction in which he had ruled in favor of the rights of persons with disabilities.  Quality Built was brought under the Fair Housing Act after Boyle’s nomination was already submitted to the Senate.

Chastised by Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals for “misguided” approach to reasonable accommodations provisions of the ADA. The conservative Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals found that Boyle wrongly (1) ignored Congress’s clear directive to consider an employer’s ability to accommodate a worker with a disability by reassigning him to a vacant position for which he is qualified, and (2) insisted that courts should “defer to the employer’s “business expertise” when considering the reasonableness of an accommodation requested under the ADA a worker with a disability. Even Judge Boyle had to admit to the Senate Judiciary Committee that he had misinterpreted the ADA’s reasonable accommodations provisions in this case.  (Williams v. Avnet)

Considers the ADA to be “special treatment,” demanding “entitlement” and “advantageous treatment” of persons with disabilities rather than protection of fundamental civil rights. (Brown v. North Carolina DMV & Pierce v. King)

Repeatedly second-guesses Congress’s legislative intent in passing the ADA, complaining that Congress had improperly changed the constitutional standard for evaluating discrimination against persons with disabilities by finding that individuals with disabilities are a “discrete and insular minority”

Refuses to acknowledge that the Supreme Court has overruled his broad rulings that Congress lacked power to pass parts of the Americans with Disabilities Act.  In Tennessee v. Lane, the Supreme Court clearly rejected Boyle's conclusion that Congress had no power under the Fourteenth Amendment to enact any of the ADA's public services provisions.  Yet Boyle refuses to admit that his rulings were incorrect.  Boyle apparently does not feel bound to follow the clear instructions of the Supreme Court. (Pierce v. King and Brown v. North Carolina Division of Motor Vehicles)

Boyle has ruled that Congress had no power under the Commerce Clause to apply the ADA to state prisons.  Years before challenges to Congress's power to pass the ADA became common, Boyle issued the earliest published court decision ruling that Congress went beyond its commerce authority in enacting the ADA.  He ruled that Congress could not use its power to regulate interstate commerce, nor any of its other powers, to apply the ADA to state prisons.  The Supreme Court has flatly contradicted Boyle and upheld Congress's power to apply the ADA to an inmate's claims of discrimination by a state prison.  (Pierce v. King)

Ruled that all of a plaintiff’s medical records are subject to disclosure in any ADA case, a ruling that forces ADA plaintiffs to choose between defending their civil rights and safeguarding their privacy. This ruling has the effect of deterring many ADA suits, and is inconsistent with the approach of most courts.  (Butler v. Burroughs Wellcome, Inc)

Ruled that localities that adopt spacing requirements for supportive housing residences discriminate in favor of persons with disabilities, not against them. A judge who believes that it is not discriminatory to bar individuals with disabilities in supportive housing from living within 375 yards of other such individuals poses serious concerns.  It is difficult to imagine a rule more rooted in prejudice than a rule barring groups of individuals with disabilities from living too close to each other.  (Oxford House v. City of Raleigh)

Boyle’s decisions have been reversed or criticized on appeal over 150 times, often for “plain error” which the Fourth Circuit defines as error so severe and obvious that it goes to the heart of the “fairness, integrity, or public reputation” of court proceedings.

About 10,000 of Boyle’s decisions have never been published and subjected to public scrutiny. Many of these cases may be relevant.

Vigorously opposed by law enforcement and first responders as well as disability and civil rights advocates