OxfordPress.com

High court considers whether rights of disabled extend to prison

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court considered Wednesday whether disabled inmates can sue states for damages when their constitutional rights are violated in prison.

Solicitor General Paul Clement, arguing for the Bush administration, told the court that the Americans with Disabilities Act was intended to make public institutions accessible for all Americans. State prisons, he said, are no exception.

Clement said the act was written to include disabled inmates like Tony Goodman, 41, who sued Georgia in 1999 for "cruel and unusual punishment" as a result of his disability.

Goodman, convicted of aggravated assault and firearm and cocaine possession, was transferred to Georgia State Prison in 1999. Once at the maximum-security prison, his narrow prison cell — where he spent as many as 23 hours a day — kept him immobile. Unable to turn himself, Goodman had to launch himself from his wheelchair in order to use the toilet.

Goodman said he was often forced to remain in his cell, littered with his own urine and feces, and prison officials failed to give him cleaning supplies. He sued the state of Georgia, the prison and eight prison officials in 1999 under Title II of the ADA.

Prison officials denied Goodman's claims — even producing a video showing the inmate walking during a search of his cell.

However, George Castanias, who argued for the state of Georgia, told the court that prisoners' rights are vastly different from those of average citizens. In the state's brief, he wrote that the act was only concerned with integrating the disabled "into the economic and social mainstream of American life." Prisons, he said, are "by definition" excluded.

Castanias noted that Goodman's request for access to television and other recreational activities went far beyond the intent of the ADA.

Justice Anthony Kennedy repeatedly questioned why prisoners deserve to sue states for money in addition to having their disabilities better accommodated.

Retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said that making accommodations for disabled prisoners is "very different" than doing so for average citizens.

O'Connor has voted for and against in two past cases involving disabled rights. If she leaves the bench before it issues a decision, the court could either rehear the case after her successor is confirmed or let the 11th Circuit's decision for Georgia stand.

According to Don Doernberg, a professor at the Pace Law School, the Goodman case could also show whether Chief Justice John Roberts will continue to support states rights as former Chief Justice William Rehnquist did.

"His approach seems to have included a fair respect for precedent, at least that's what he signaled [at his confirmation hearings]," Doernberg said. "One might expect not to see radical departures from the path the court has been taking for the last 20 to 25 years."

(Story can end here; Optional add follows)

Rehnquist, who died in September, shifted the court toward a greater respect for states rights, striking down federal laws with greater frequency than had been seen since the New Deal. But during his final two years on the court, Rehnquist's "federalism revolution" veered sharply off course.

From 2003 on, the court showed more deference to Congress than it had in decades: It court upheld lawsuits against Nevada and Tennessee based on the Family and Medical Leave Act and the ADA; and in one of Rehnquist's final cases, the court decided to allow federal drug laws to trump California's legalization of medical marijuana.

Mike Saccone's e-mail address is msaccone(at)coxnews.com