Previous 4 / 58 Next

TENNESSEE v. LANE Syllabus must afford to all individuals a meaningful opportunity to be heard in its courts. Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U. S. 371, 379. A number of affirmative obligations flow from this principle. Cases such as Boddie, Griffin v. Illinois,351 U. S. 12, and Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U. S. 335, make clear that ordinary considerations of cost and convenience alone cannot justify a State's failure to provide individuals with a meaningful right of access to the courts. Judged against this backdrop, Title II's affirmative obligation to accommodate is a reasonable prophylactic measure, reasonably targeted to a legitimate end. Pp. 530-534. 315 F. 3d 680, affirmed. STEVENS, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which O'CONNOR, SOUTER, GINSBURG, and BREYER, JJ., joined. SOUTER, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which GINSBURG, J., joined, post, p. 534. GINSBURG, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which SOUTER and BREYER, JJ., joined, post, p. 535. REHNQUIST, C. J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which KENNEDY and THOMAS, JJ., joined, post, p. 538. SCALIA, J., post, p. 554, and THOMAS, J., post, p. 565, filed dissenting opinions. Michael E. Moore, Solicitor General of Tennessee, argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were Paul G. Summers, Attorney General, S. Elizabeth Martin, and Mary Martelle Collier. William J. Brown argued the cause for the private respondents. With him on the brief were Samuel R. Bagenstos and Thomas C. Goldstein. Deputy Solicitor General Clement argued the cause for the United States urging affirmance. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Olson, Assistant Attorney General Acosta, PatriciaA. Millett, Jessica Dunsay Silver, Sarah E. Harrington,and Kevin Russell.* *A brief of amici curiae urging reversal was fied for the State of Alabama et al. by William H. Pryor,Jr., Attorney General of Alabama, Nathan A Forrester, Solicitor General, Gene C. Schaerr, and Richard H. Sinkfield III, and by the Attorneys General for their respective States as follows: Jon Bruning of Nebraska, Brian Sandoval of Nevada, Wayne Stenehjem of North Dakota, W. A Drew Edmondson of Oklahoma, Patrick J Crank of Wyoming, and Mark L. Shurtleff of Utah. Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed for the State of Kansas et al. by Phill Kline, Attorney General of Kansas, David W Davies, Deputy Attorney General, and Ralph James DeZago and Harry Kennedy, Assistant Attorneys General, and by M. Jane Brady, Attorney Gen-

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Tennessee v. Lane

Judgment

Question Presented: Whether Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act validly abrogates state sovereign immunity under the 11th Amendment and whether people with disabilities have a right to access courts to lodge fundamental rights claims, including electoral disputes.

Alleged Acts: A paraplegic who used a wheelchair, Lane, in 1996 was summoned to appear at the Polk County Courthouse in Tennessee as a criminal defendant. The courthouse had no elevator, and Lane could not access the second-floor courtroom. He was forced to crawl up two flights of stairs to reach the courtroom for his own criminal hearing. When he returned for a subsequent hearing, he refused to crawl up the stairs and was arrested and jailed for failure to appear.

Procedural history: District court ruled that Congress validly abrogated state sovereign immunity against Title II in Americans with Disabilities Act, dismissing Tennessee's Motion to Dismiss. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's ruling.

Summary: Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509 (2004) is a U.S. Supreme Court case that addressed whether Congress could validly abrogate a state’s Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity under the Fourteenth Amendment to enforce access to courts for people with disabilities.

Conclusion: Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, as applied to the class of cases implicating the fundamental right of access to the courts, constitutes a valid exercise of Congress's Section 5 authority to enforce the guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Legal Issue(s)

Criminal Procedure
Elections as a Fundamental Right

Applicable Law(s): Americans with Disabilities Act, Eleventh Amendment, and Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution

Region: Americas

Country: United States of America

Language of Decision

English

Court: Supreme Court

Election Type: General

Date of decision: May 17, 2004

Geolocation

Latitude: 38.8906

Longitude: -77.0047

: Geolocation

Link: https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep541/usrep541509/usrep541509.pdf

Primary Documents

Tennessee v. Lane.pdf
English
Download View

Election Judgments - IFES

Select target paragraph3

Tennessee v. Lane

Primary Documents

Notifications