Supreme Court Roundup: The 2003-2004 Term Brought Significant Challenges to Federal Powers

By Williams, Charles F. | Social Education, October 2004 | Go to article overview
Save to active project

Supreme Court Roundup: The 2003-2004 Term Brought Significant Challenges to Federal Powers

Williams, Charles F., Social Education

There was much going on as the Court closed out its term in June. Among the more significant rulings was Tennessee v. Lane, No. 02-1667, in which the Court upheld Congress's authority to subject states to damage suits for violations of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Three other cases important to the administration's "War on Terror" were also widely watched: Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, No. 03-6696, Rumsfeld v. Padilla et al., No. 03-1027, Rasul et al. v. Bush et al. No. 03-334. In these cases, the Court ruled that citizens and non-citizens alike may challenge their designation as "enemy combatants." Yet one of the most important opinions issued by the Court all term was one of its least expected, Blakely v. Washington, No. 02-1632, which called into question the constitutionality of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines.


Tennessee v. Lane was brought by George Lane and other paraplegics who use wheelchairs and are unable to climb stairs. They claimed that they were denied access to the Tennessee state court system in violation of Title II of the ADA, which 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, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity."

Lane's predicament made news when he appeared in court to face criminal charges and had to crawl up the steps of a county courthouse that lacked an elevator. When be returned to the courthouse at a later date for another hearing, he refused the options of either again crawling up the steps or being carried to the courtroom by officers. He was then arrested and jailed for failure to appear in the courtroom.

Lane and his co-plaintiffs sued for money damages under the ADA. They argued that Tide II requires states to provide reasonable accommodations, or "modifications," to allow otherwise eligible persons to participate fully in public services, programs, or activities. The plaintiffs contended that an elevator was exactly the kind of reasonable modification the state had a duty to provide.

Tennessee responded that it was immune from this suit under the Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution, a provision that has been interpreted as barring suits from being brought in federal court against state governmental entities unless either the state consents to being sued or Congress validly abrogates the states' immunity. Lane countered that in adopting Title II, Congress did clearly state its intention to abrogate the states' immunity when it provided in the law itself that "A state shall not be immune under the eleventh amendment to the Constitution of the United States from an action in federal or state court of competent jurisdiction for a violation of this chapter." 42 U.S.C. [section] 12202.

The state, however, cited an earlier Supreme Court case, Board of Trustees of the Univ. of Alabama v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356 (2001), in which the Court ruled by a 5-4 vote that even though Congress sought to abrogate the states' immunity from suit under the employment provisions of Title I of the ADA, it lacked the power to do so. Likewise, Tennessee argued, Congress also lacked the power to abrogate states' immunity under Title II despite its desire to do so. On appeal, the Sixth Circuit ruled for Lane.

Because the resolution of this argument could affect the balance of power between the state and federal governments, the Supreme Court agreed to review the case. In an opinion released May 17, 2004, the justices voted 5-4 that Congress did have the power to abrogate states' immunity from suit under Title II. For the source of that power, the Court pointed to Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which gives Congress "the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of" the rest of the Fourteenth Amendment. In the majority were Justices Stevens, O'Connor, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer.

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
Loading One moment ...
Project items
Cite this article

Cited article

Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited article

Supreme Court Roundup: The 2003-2004 Term Brought Significant Challenges to Federal Powers


Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution. We are sorry for any inconvenience.
Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.

Are you sure you want to delete this highlight?