|
|
|
Oral Arguments in Tennessee v. Lane
January 2004
Oral arguments in Tennessee v. Lane – the Supreme Court case that threatens to further chip away at the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) –
ADA Watch/NCDR has joined in filing an Amicus Brief in support of the plaintiffs, has organized a petition campaign, media events, and our Op-ed was published in Tennessee to continue putting pressure on the A.G.
You can also show your support by signing the ADA Watch petition to Save the ADA!
Contact us at info@ADAWatch.org if you have any questions.Sincerely,
Jim Ward, President
ADA Watch and the National Coalition for Disability Rights
Op-ed by Jim Ward Published in Memphis Commercial Appeal
Writing on Tennessee v. Lane, ADA Watch/NCDR's Jim Ward was published on January 7th as a guest columnist in the Memphis Commercial Appeal.He writes: "The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments next week in a case that could determine whether Tennessee officials will be allowed to block the doors Congress meant to open for people who have disabilities."
"Instead of directing the state to bring Tennessee's county courthouses into compliance with requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Atty. Gen. Paul Summers has chosen to fight a lower-court ruling and challenge the constitutionality of the ADA."
Click Here to Read the Full Column...
Sign the ADA Watch Petition to Save the ADA!
Thousands of Americans have signed the ADA Watch Petition to Save the ADA. Sign on today and demonstrate your support for the ADA and your solidarity with George Lane, Beverly Jones, and the other plaintiffs in Tenn. v. Lane.The petition also includes a poll on ADA Restoration. Let us know how you feel about legislation to restore the damage done to the ADA in the courts.
Click Here to Sign the Petition Now!
ADA Watch Joins Amicus Brief in Support of Lane and Jones
ADA Watch/NCDR has joined the Honorable Dick Thornburgh, as well as the National Organization on Disability and the American Association of People with Disabilities, in filing an Amicus brief in support of the respondents in Tenn. v. Lane.
The brief was written by Arlene Mayerson and Silvia Yee of the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund; and Claudia Center, Lewis Bossing, and Elisabeth Kristen of the Legal Aid Society - Employment Law Center.
From the Introduction:
The Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) has begun the process of transforming the American landscape and prevalent negative stereotypes about people with disabilities by promoting the integration of persons with disabilities into all aspects of public life.
By directly addressing the state and local levels at which Americans commonly interact with their government, Title II of the ADA sought to redress exclusionary policies identified by Congress that were all the more invidious for their apparent self-justification: the less people with disabilities were seen, the more they could be assumed to be both unable and unwilling to fully participate in society.
The falseness of this twin burden of inability and disinterest cast upon people with disabilities has become self-evident in the years since the ADA has come into effect. The law’s successes in increasing the accessibility of public transportation, courtrooms, voting, and higher education has begun to remedy years of state-sponsored segregation and exclusion. By allowing people with disabilities to be seen and accepted as participating members of our society, the Act has dispelled prevailing myths, fears and prejudices.
While change is often gradual and there is still much left to be done, persons with disabilities are finally beginning to enjoy their rights as citizens.
At the same time, fears of enormous disruption and devastating financial effects have been proven unfounded. In largest measure, this is the result of Congress’s crafting of fair and reasonable provisions after extensive study and the careful balancing of interests.
The ADA is the culmination of more than twenty years of fact-finding, study, and incremental legislation to address the widespread exclusion and segregation of Americans with disabilities.
The successes achieved through implementation of the Act, coupled with the ability of the states and other covered entities to achieve accessibility over time and without causing undue administrative or financial hardship, confirm that Congress indeed fashioned a proportionate and congruent remedy to deter and remedy historic disability-based discrimination.
The hard- fought gains recently achieved by the passage and enforcement of the ADA, and the promise of greater equality and opportunity in the years to come, are threatened by the states’ ongoing and broad-based challenges to the constitutional validity of the Act.
While this case questions Congress’s authority to enact the ADA under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, other state-sponsored appeals 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 disabled persons to participate in critical facets of American life will be undermined before the goal of full integration has been achieved.
Click Here to Read the Entire Brief
25 Organizations Filed Amicus Brief in Support of Lane and Jones
The following organizations also filed an Amicus Brief in support of Lane and Jones. This brief was written by Ira Burnim and Jennifer Mathis of the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, in partnership with Howrey, Simon, Arnold, and White, LLP. Their brief is linked below.AARP, American Association on Mental Retardation, American Council of the Blind, American Diabetes Association, American Occupational Therapy Association, American Psychiatric Association, The Arc of the United States, Association on Higher Education and Disability, Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law,Alexander Graham Bell Association, for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, Depression and Bipolar Support Alliance, Easter Seals, The Epilepsy Foundation, Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc., National Alliance for the Mentally Ill, National Association for Rights Protection and Advocacy, National Association of Councils, on Developmental Disabilities, National Council on Independent Living, National Health Law Program, National Mental Health Association, National Mental Health Consumers’, Self-Help Clearinghouse, National Multiple Sclerosis Society, Paralyzed Veterans of America, Tennessee Disability Coalition, United Cerebral Palsy Associations, Inc.
Background on Tenn. v. Lane Case
George Lane, a single above-the-knee amputee, was summoned to appear in court and forced to crawl his way up two flights of stairs in a courthouse with no elevator or other accommodations required by the ADA. At a second hearing, he refused to again crawl up two flights of stairs. Lane, despite notifying the judge that he was downstairs, was then arrested for not appearing in court.Beverly Jones, a court reporter who is a paraplegic, is repeatedly denied opportunity to work in county courthouses because of lack of wheelchair accessibility. Lane and Jones successfully sued the state of Tennessee under Title II of the ADA. The state of Tennessee appealed that decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, claiming that the state is shielded from a key provision of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by “states’ rights” or “sovereign immunity.”
Other plaintiffs, each with equally compelling stories, are a part of this historic case before the Supreme Court on January 13, 2004. A negative ruling would further weaken the ADA, which has already been narrowed by a series of ideologically-driven split decisions in the Supreme Court.
More Background and Briefs at Bazelon.org
| Benefits | Info | Join | Other Sites | News | Feedback | Calendar | Home |