For several years, Georgia inmate Tony Goodman has been seeking relief in a disability rights case involving the State of Georgia and the Georgia prison system. Goodman, who is wheelchair-bound, claimed that his rights were violated on multiple occasions when he was forced to sit in his own feces, was forced to live in a cell where he could not turn his wheelchair around and when officials ignored his medical needs.

Using the Americans with Disabilities Act, Goodman initially filed his lawsuit in 1999 claiming declaratory, injunctive and monetary relief. And, although the facts of the case have been accepted and the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals has ultimately ruled in Goodman's favor for injunctive relief, the question of whether state and prison officials can be sued for monetary damages under the ADA remains.

The Supreme Court will have a change to answer that question on November 9 when it hears the case Goodman V. Georgia, U.S. v. Georgia.

“It really is all about sovereign immunity. The Supreme Court said in Yeskey (a previous case) [that] Congress intended [that the ADA] clearly applies to state prisons. The issue that was left unresolved, and is not presented in Goodman, is does Congress have the power to abrogate state sovereign immunity? All that is at stake here is damages,” said David Fathi of the American Civil Liberty Union's National Prison Project.

But the damages question may have far reaching effects, according to disability advocates, if the court finds for the State of Georgia. 

“Individual prisoners will find it incredibly hard to file lawsuits over injuries they have suffered because lawyers who take these cases need to have fee-generated cases. If you are looking for a lawyer, you have to be able to sue for money damages; otherwise people won't take the cases. It could have an effect on whether these cases come forward,” said Sara Norman of the Prison Law Office in California, which works on behalf of inmates in that state with disability rights claims.

This could also mean that citizens seeking relief under the ADA may be hampered as well, depending on how the court rules, she said.

The concern over whether states are immune from paying money damages in relation to the ADA is held by both inmate rights organizations and others with a general concern for disability rights.  This is evidenced by the multitude of briefs filed in support of Goodman including the ACLU, the National Disability Rights Network, a host of other prisoner legal and disability advocate organizations, former President George Bush and the fact that the federal government also filed an appeal on Goodman's behalf.

While the ADA applies to prisons, the Goodman case and other recent disability cases, seek to clarify under what circumstances states and state officials must pay for violating the law. In Goodman's case, he seeks $600,000 from each of the defendants.

To persuade the Supreme Court, attorneys for Goodman will talk about the record of discrimination against inmates and legal precedent in general, while the State of Georgia's attorneys will discuss state protections under the 11th Amendment.

Arguments are Complex

According to Sam Bagenstos, Attorney for Goodman and a Law Professor for the Washington University in St. Louis School of Law, Goodman's case has precedent behind it from last year's Supreme Court ADA case Tennessee v. Lane.

In Lane, the high court ruled that a disabled man who did not have clear access to a courtroom on a second floor was entitled to damages under the ADA.

“From our perspective, this case is Lane. Lane was a case involving the application of the ADA to another area of state government. This case is stronger than Lane in that there is such an extensive violation of rights,” said Bagenstos.

According to Betsy Ginsburg, Attorney with the New York Legal Aid Society, the Supreme Court took a very narrow view in Lane and stated it would consider these issues on a case by case basis. Nevertheless, she believes that the Goodman case has even more going for it.

“There's a lot of support for Title 2 of the ADA with respect to prisoners or overall. The idea that governments are entitled to discriminate based on a disability is appalling. However, the Supreme Court's decisions on state's rights cases have always been very close,” Ginsburg said, adding that court only ruled 5-4 in favor of Lane last year.

The legal analysis of sovereign immunity is complex and complicated. Because the 11th Amendment provides states with sovereign immunity protection, the court will have to examine the history of discrimination against the class of people in the case (prisoners) and whether Congress had the power to override the 11th Amendment in these cases.

According to Bagenstos, Georgia's attorneys will argue that it did not.

“They are going to argue that Congress didn't have the power under the ADA to apply it to state prisons, but it ignores the facts of this case,” he said.

Although David Langford, Assistant Attorney General for Georgia and Counsel of Record in the case for the state, decline to comment, the state's brief gives an outline for the issues the state will address before the Supreme Court.

First, the state argues in its brief that prisoner claims require “a heightened deference” to the actions of prison officials and that they merit the lowest level of constitutional protection –  which takes it outside the court's decisions in Tennessee v. Lane.

Another of the state's arguments is that Congress did not have before it “a pattern of unconstitutional discrimination against disabled state prisoners with respect to the provision of programs, services and activities.”

In regard to the ADA specifically, the state's brief said, “The legislative history of the ADA, in fact, was concerned primarily with integrating ‘persons with disabilities into the economic and social mainstream of life,' which is the polar opposite of the imprisoned inmate, who is by definition removed from society's mainstream.”

In addition, the state's brief contends that Title 2 of the ADA is not a proportionate and congruent remedy for any history of unconstitutional discrimination against disabled state prisoners. Nor is it proportional and congruent when considered against Goodman's argument that Title 2 of the ADA is a constitutional means for enforcing the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause, the brief said.

The State of Georgia here takes aim at a particular argument being made by several prisoner rights and disability rights advocates in their brief in support of Goodman. Those groups argue that Congress can “abrogate sovereign immunity” if it is enforcing the constitution and, it can enact prophylactic measures to prevent constitutional violations.

“We're arguing that the ADA is appropriate prophylactic legislation to prevent violations of the 8th Amendment,” said Fathi of the ACLU.

In addition, Fathi said the Goodman case is even stronger in this regard because the opportunities for other remedies in prison are less likely.

“Prison is a total environment. In prison, self-help isn't an option. Without minimizing [the issue in] Lane, he could have had a friend carry him up the stairs [to the courtroom]. In prison, if the state doesn't accommodate your disability, then your disability isn't accommodated. That's where the ADA is most necessary,” Fathi said.

Beyond this, Fathi said that the legal system itself supports the right to file for monetary damages.

“In our legal system, we have always recognized that if someone violates your rights without justification, then paying money damages is an appropriate remedy. There's no reason why prisoners whose rights are discriminated against shouldn't be able to collect a remedy that is available to everyone else,” he said.

In addition, prisoners, even if their cases move forward for injunctive relief, often have been released from prison before they ever see the fruits of their labor. So, if they are to ever have any relief from the discrimination they sued for, suing for damages is often the only way they will be sure to receive some benefit.

Finally, Bagenstos said there is a real dichotomy in the case in that the 11th Circuit found that the facts of Goodman's case were strong enough to sustain a claim that it violated his constitutional rights to medical care and regarding his conditions of confinement, but it questioned the claim's viability under Title 2 of the ADA.

Bagenstos suggests that if the court ruled one way on the constitutional rights issue, then it should also rule that way in regard to the ADA.

Meaning for Corrections

Disability and prisoner rights advocates differ slightly on how the case's outcome may affect corrections agencies and inmates.

According to Ginsberg, if the court rules in favor of Goodman and his damages claims, then it should be a sign to corrections agencies and states that have lagged behind in accommodating disabled inmates that they could be subject to not only fixing the problems, but also be liable for damages.

“Most correctional systems are still required to provide reasonable accommodations and are prohibited from discriminating if they are receiving federal funds. All of those states should be abiding by those rules anyway, but many are not,” Ginsburg said.

She added that even if the court ruled against the damages section of Goodman's claim,  state correctional systems are still required to accommodate this population.

“I think it would be unwise for any correctional system to take an opinion the other way to mean they are not required,” she said.

Norman of the Prison Law Office said that many correctional institutions have come to realize that accommodating disabled prisoners is good correctional practice anyway.

“If you have someone with a seizure disorder, then you want them on a lower bunk. It's for the person's protection and you don't want an incident that could cause chaos in the unit and other problems,” she said. “It's not rocket science for the most part. A lot of accommodations take no money.”

Indeed, according to Bagenstos, many of Goodman's problems could have been resolved if corrections officials had installed a grab bar near the toilet in his cell.

Cases like Goodman's, he said, indicate that the accommodation problem in state prisons is real.

“I think it's fair to say that the problem of denial of basic accommodations is extremely high,” he said.

Come November, many eyes will be on this case as it is heard before a court with at least one new justice and another, returning, who was a major vote in the narrow 5-4 majority in Lane.

“I think it is very important for prisoners with disabilities and I think it is also a big case for people with disabilities generally. There is a very significant record of discrimination by agencies and municipalities. If [the court] finds the states are entitled to sovereign immunity, it is a concern in the context of Title 2 [of the ADA],” said Ginsburg.

Resources:

ACLU Prison Project -  http://www.aclu.org/Prisons/PrisonsMain.cfm

Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law – Goodman page http://www.bazelon.org/issues/disabilityrights/resources/goodman.htm

Prison Law Office - http://www.prisonlaw.com/