Can State Prisoners Sue Under Federal Disabilities Law?
| Publication year | 1996 |
| Pages | 17 |
D. Kyle Sampson.
The United States Supreme Court recently decided a case that could have a significant impact on the manner in which States, including Utah, operate their prison systems. The case, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections v. Yeskey,[1] presented a simple issue: Does the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) apply to state prisoners?
Prior to the Supreme Court's Yeskey decision, federal appellate courts had split in answering that question. The Ninth, Seventh, and Third Circuits had determined that state prisoners could sue under the ADA,[2] while the Tenth and Fourth Circuits, in contrast, had concluded that the ADA did not apply to state prisoners.[3] The importance of this issue is unquestioned, especially in view of the ever-increasing number of inmates with such ADA-covered disabilities as HIV infection and AIDS, learning disabilities, mental retardation, psychological disorders, drug addiction, and alcoholism.[4] In Utah, over 1,700 inmates -more than 35 percent of the prison population - have disabilities that arguably fall within the coverage of the ADA.
A. PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS V. YESKEY.
In the Yeskey case, Pennsylvania prison officials denied prisoner Ronald Yeskey admission into Pennsylvania's "motivational boot camp" program, which requires inmates to participate in strenuous physical activity, because of his history of hypertension. Instead, Yeskey was sentenced to 18 to 36 months in prison for drunken driving, resisting arrest, and other offenses. Yeskey sued, claiming that he was discriminated against because of his disability. A United States District Court in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania threw out the case, but Yeskey won his appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.[5]
On appeal, the Supreme Court unanimously concluded that the language of the ADA "unmistakeably includes State prisons and prisoners within its coverage."[6] The ADA prohibits "public entities" from discriminating against people with disabilities.[7] The statute broadly defines "public entities" to include "any State or local government" and "any department, agency, special purpose district, or other instrumentality of a State or local government."[8] The statute also provides that "no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity."[9] Finally, the statute requires that public entities make "reasonable accommodations" for disabled people.[10]
The Supreme Court in Yeskey interpreted this statutory language literally and determined that the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, an agency of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, was covered by the ADA.[11] As a result, the Court held that under the literal language of the ADA, disabled prisoners, like Ronald Yeskey, may sue prison officials whenever they believe that officials have discriminated against them or have failed to make reasonable accommodations for their disabilities.[12] The Yeskey decision is troubling for several reasons.
B. PRACTICAL OBJECTIONS.
First, there are formidable practical objections to burdening prisons with having to comply with the requirements of the ADA (and its onerous implementing regulations[13] ). The propensity of prisoners to sue at the drop of a hat is legendary and prison systems are already strapped for funds. Indeed, numerous outlandish ADA-based claims already have been filed by prisoners: An inmate in Nevada with an alleged mobility impairment has claimed the right to an exemption from wearing restraints,[14] an inmate in Florida with arthritis has claimed the right to a touch-sensitive typewriter,[15] an inmate in Illinois with visual problems has claimed the right to be transferred from a maximum security prison,[16] and an inmate in Iowa confined to the The University of Chicago Law Review. prison infirmary has claimed the right to a personal television with cable and a remote control (he won, but the case was later reversed).[17] It is obvious that the cost of operating a prison system - over $150 million in Utah in 1997 - and the corresponding burden on taxpayers will increase significantly if the ADA is applied to state prisons. More importantly, the practical effect of granting disabled prisoners rights of access that require costly modifications of prison facilities will be the curtailment of educational, recreational, and rehabilitative programs for prisoners, in which event everyone will be worse off.
Not surprisingly, the States are uniformly opposed to the federal regulation of state prisons that application of the ADA will impose. Utah Attorney General Jan Graham joined with 35 other State Attorneys General in filing an amicus curiae brief in the Yeskey case. The brief, which apparently was ignored by the Supreme Court, emphasized the severe impact that applying the ADA to state prisons would have on the States, argued that application of the ADA would undermine the States' ability to manage inmates and allocate limited resources, and urged the Supreme Court to rule in Pennsylvania's favor.
In contrast, the Clinton administration, led by the Justice Department's Civil Rights chief Bill Lann Lee,[18] argued in favor of federal management of state prisons. In its own amicus brief, the Justice Department dismissed the wide-ranging consequences that application of the ADA to state prisons would have on the States. Instead, the Justice Department argued that a disabled prisoner should be permitted to sue state prison officials whenever he...
To continue reading
Request your trial