Misapplication of Precedent: the United States Supreme Court Ignores the Overbreadth of the Ada by Abrogating State Sovereignty in Tennessee v. Lane

• Publication year: 2022

38 Creighton L. Rev. 1065. MISAPPLICATION OF PRECEDENT: THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT IGNORES THE OVERBREADTH OF THE ADA BY ABROGATING STATE SOVEREIGNTY IN TENNESSEE V. LANE

Creighton Law Review

Vol. 38

INTRODUCTION

The Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution restricts the judiciary's power over the states by limiting the abilities of a citizen of one state to bring a lawsuit against another state.(fn1) The United States Supreme Court has interpreted this prohibition to include lawsuits a citizen has brought against his or her own state.(fn2) However, Congress has the power to abrogate the states' immunity provided by the Eleventh Amendment through legislative actions.(fn3) The Supreme Court has decided that for Congress to effectively revoke the states' immunity, Congress must first clearly express its intent, and then it must enact legislation pursuant to a valid constitutional authority.(fn4) The Supreme Court has also determined a valid constitutional authority must come from § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which gives Congress authority to enact appropriate legislation to enforce Fourteenth Amendment rights.(fn5) In recent years, the Court's decisions with respect to these issues have turned on whether Congress had authority to enact such enforcing legislation.(fn6)

In Tennessee v. Lane,(fn7) George Lane ("Lane"), a paraplegic, appeared at a hearing on the second floor of a Tennessee courthouse to answer criminal charges the State of Tennessee brought against him.(fn8) Because the courthouse did not have an elevator, Lane crawled up the stairs to his hearing.(fn9) In Lane's return trip to the courthouse for a hearing, he refused to crawl up the stairs and rejected accommodation from the court.(fn10) Therefore, police officers arrested him for failing to appear.(fn11) Lane sued the State of Tennessee, as well as several Tennessee counties, for violating Title II of the Americans with Disabili-ties Act ("ADA"), which provides a disabled person shall not be excluded from any services, activities, or programs a public entity provides.(fn12) The United States Supreme Court stated Congress had the power to revoke the states' sovereign immunity granted by the Eleventh Amendment.(fn13) The Lane Court stated for Congress to properly abrogate such immunity it must state its intent to do so and use valid authority based on the Constitution.(fn14) The Court noted Congress' authority must come from its enforcing power of section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment.(fn15) The Court also explained Congress could enact reasonable prophylactic legislation, but the legislation it passes must be appropriate in relation to the evil the remedy was trying to prevent.(fn16) Ultimately, the Court in Lane concluded Congress validly enacted Title II of the ADA because this legislation was appropriate to enforce the rights of the Fourteenth Amendment.(fn17)

This Note will discuss the Lane Court's erroneous determination that Title II of the ADA was appropriate legislation under section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment.(fn18) This Note will begin by reviewing the facts and holding of Lane.(fn19) Next, this Note will examine federal statutes and cases detailing what Title II of the ADA provides and how the Supreme Court has determined appropriate legislation.(fn20) Finally, this Note will analyze the Supreme Court's decision in Lane and will present three arguments.(fn21) First, this Note will show the Supreme Court incorrectly expanded Lane's claim to include the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.(fn22) Second, this Note will demonstrate the Supreme Court, by asserting widespread unconstitutional disability discrimination, misinterpreted Congress' legislative findings.(fn23) Finally, this Note will reveal the Supreme Court incorrectly validated Title II of the ADA because this legislation was overbroad in scope.(fn24) This Note will conclude Congress did not properly abrogate the states' Eleventh Amendment immunity in enacting Title II of the ADA.(fn25)

FACTS AND HOLDING

In the fall of 1996, the State of Tennessee filed criminal charges against George Lane ("Lane"), who could not walk as a result of severe injuries he suffered in a car accident.(fn26) Lane appeared, as required by law, in a Tennessee courthouse to respond to the charges.(fn27) His criminal proceedings took place in a courtroom on the second floor of the courthouse, and Lane crawled up the stairs to appear at his hearing because the courthouse did not have an elevator.(fn28) Lane returned for a second hearing, but he refused to crawl up the stairs and refused any assistance from officers of the court who offered to carry him to his hearing.(fn29) Consequently, court officers arrested Lane for failing to appear at his hearing and placed Lane in jail.(fn30) Lane hired an attorney after his release but still refused to attend his subsequent hearings; rather, he waited on the first floor of the courthouse while his attorney relayed any relevant information to and from the hearing.(fn31) There was no evidence that Lane requested either an accessible location for his hearing or assistance to get to the courtroom.(fn32) Furthermore, Lane refused assistance from the court officers, who offered to carry him to subsequent hearings.(fn33) Additionally, the court held Lane's preliminary hearing in the library of the courthouse, a part of the building fully accessible to disabled persons.(fn34)

In August 1998, Lane filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee in August 1998 against the State of Tennessee along with several Tennessee Counties (collectively referred to as the "State") alleging violations of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA").(fn35) Lane claimed the State deprived him of his right of access to the court system and sought damages as well as equitable relief.(fn36) The State moved to dismiss, claiming the Eleventh Amendment barred Lane's suit.(fn37) The district court rejected the State's motion without issuing an opinion, and the State appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.(fn38) The State's appeal was based on the collateral order doc-trine, which allowed state entities to appeal a lower court's decision denying Eleventh Amendment immunity.(fn39) Following the State's appeal, the United States filed a motion to intervene in order to defend Title II of the ADA, claiming it validly abrogated the states' Eleventh Amendment immunity.(fn40) On April 28, 2000, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held the appeal in abeyance while the United States Supreme Court was still deciding Board of Trustees of University of Alabama v. Garrett,(fn41) a case involving an ADA violation.(fn42) The Garrett Court concluded Title I violations of the ADA did not allow lawsuits against states when plaintiffs were seeking money damages, but the Court was silent on Title II actions.(fn43)

After the Court's decision in Garrett, the Sixth Circuit heard arguments for a Title II action in Popovich v. Cuyahoga County Court,(fn44) in which a hearing-impaired man sued the State of Ohio for failing to accommodate his impairment in a child custody proceeding.(fn45) The Popovich court allowed the case to continue despite the State of Ohio's claim that it had Eleventh Amendment immunity.(fn46) The court in Popovich reasoned Garrett barred private ADA claims against states where the claim was grounded in equal protection.(fn47) However, the Popovich court determined Garrett did not apply to claims based on principles of due process.(fn48)

The Sixth Circuit, guided by its ruling in Popovich, denied the State's motion to dismiss because the basis of Lane's claim was a deprivation of his due process rights.(fn49) The Sixth Circuit granted the State's petition for a rehearing.(fn50) The State argued Lane's complaint did not allege any violation of due process, which would leave the State immune from suit because of the Eleventh Amendment.(fn51) Lane, however, alleged he was deprived of his due process rights because he was denied access to the courts.(fn52)

On January 10, 2003, the Sixth Circuit issued an amended opinion, which stated Title II of the ADA abrogated the State's immunity under the Eleventh Amendment when private individuals filed due process claims.(fn53) The Sixth Circuit continued by discussing how other jurisdictions have decided access to the courts was a due process right under the Fourteenth Amendment.(fn54) The court stated Title II of the ADA was enacted because "physical barriers in government buildings, including courthouses and in the courtrooms themselves, have had the effect of denying disabled people the opportunity to access vital services and to exercise fundamental rights guaranteed by the Due Process Clause."(fn55) Acknowledging the court's ruling in Popovich guaranteed enforcement of the rights of those with disabilities, the court declared Congress could demand states to consider the Constitutional right at hand and the consequences that would occur for not accommodating the disabled.(fn56) The court expressed the need for this legislation in order to prevent states from placing undue burdens on the Constitutional rights of those with disabilities.(fn57) Thus, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of the State's motion to dismiss and remanded the case to the...