# Amicus Curiae Brief — Pennsylvania Dept. of Corrections v. Yeskey > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385014_0128%3A12 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Amicus Curiae Brief - **Published:** January 1, 1998 - **Citation:** 524 U.S. 206 ## Text an No. 97-634 | Supreme Court, U.S, IN THE MAR Supreme Court of the United 4% OCTOBER TERM, 1997 ED 1998 E CLERK COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; JOSEPH D. LEHMAN; JEFFREY A. BEARD, PH.D.; JEFFREY K. DITTY; DoES NUMBER 1 THROUGH 20 INCLUSIVE, . Petitioners, | RONALD R. YESKEY, Respondent. On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit BRIEF OF THE COUNCIL OF STATE GOVERNMENTS, NATIONAL GOVERNORS’ ASSOCIATION, NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STATE LEGISLATURES, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES, INTERNATIONAL CITY/COUNTY MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION, US. CONFERENCE OF MAYORS, NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES, AND INTERNATIONAL MUNICIPAL LAWYERS ASSOCIATION AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS a RICHARD RUDA * Chief Counsel JAMES I. CROWLEY STATE AND LOCAL LEGAL CENTER 444 North Capitol Street, N.W. Suite 345 Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 434-4850 * Counsel of Record for the Amici Curiae WILSON - Eras Printine Co.. Inc. - 789-0096 - WASHINGTON, D.C. 20001 SG’ Whether the Americans With Disabiliti " | in state prisons. es Act ap- 2 | TABLE OF CONTENTS QUESTION PRESENTED ..0.0...........-...ccccceescececseseseeseees TABLE OF AUTHORITIES. .............-............0:-ssseeseeeesess INTEREST OF THE AMICI CURIAE |... EE SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .....020. eee ARGUMENT ........................ THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLD- ING THAT THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILI- TIES ACT APPLIES TO INMATES IN STATE RIED ’’). 19 United States 1997 137 (1997) (Tables Nos. 204 & 205). Congress also found that the Nation’s proper goals regarding individuals with disabilities are to assure equality of oppor- tunity, full participation, independent living, and economic self-sufficiency for such individuals; and . . . the continuing existence of unfair and un- necessary discrimination and prejudice denies people with disabilities the opportunity to com- pete on an equal basis and to pursue those oppor- tunities for which our free society is justifiably famous[. ] 42 U.S.C. § 12101(a) (8) & (9). Prisoners, of course, do not engage in “independent living.” Jd. Nor are they entitled to “full[y] participat[e]” in, or “to pursue those opportunities for which our free society is justifiably famous.” 7d. As the tenor of these and Congress’ other findings demonstrate, Congress enacted the ADA to address discrimination against the disabled in “our free soci- ety.” Id. None of the nine comprehensive findings which Congress made manifests an intent to provide state inmates with the protections of the ADA.* The * Congress also stated that its purpose was “to invoke the sweep of congressional authority .. . in order to address the major areas of discrimination faced day-to-day by people with disabilities.” 42 U.S.C. § 12101(b) (4). While prison popula- tions contain large numbers of disabled inmates, the policies and rules of state prison administrators cannot be reasonably understood as being a “major area[] of discrimination faced day-to-day by people with disabilities.” Jd. Only a small frac- tion of the estimated forty three million disabled Americans are ever imprisoned ; prison administrators’ policies and rules are simply not a “major area[] of discrimination faced day- to-day” by the disabled. 20 absence of any reference to “corrections” or “incar- ceration” in its numerous findings demonstrates that Congress would have viewed a judicial interpretation that the statute protects state prisoners as an un- intended and unduly disruptive result. The legislative history supports this conclusion. As one of the House Reports notes, the ADA “will per- mit the United States to take a long-delayed but very necessary step to welcome individuals fully into the mainstream of American society.” H. Rep. No. 485(1), 101st Cong., 2d Sess. 24 (1990), reprinted at 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 268. See also H. Rep. No. 485(II), 101st Cong., 2d Sess. 50, reprinted at 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 332 (“there is a compelling need to pro- vide a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities and for the integration of persons with disabilities into the economic and social main- stream of American life”). As these statements make clear, Congress’ concern was protecting disabled per- sons in free society. It is no answer that Congress intended the ADA to apply to inmates because many of them are eventually released and “have the same interest in access to the programs, services, and activities available to the other inmates of their prison as disabled people on the outside have to the counterpart programs, serv- ices, and activities available to free people.” Craw- ford v. Indiana Dept. of Corrections, 115 F.3d 481, 486 (7th Cir. 1997)._ The Equal Protection Clause already prohibits state prison administrators from engaging in irrational discrimination against disabled inmates; 42 U.S.C. § 1983 provides remedies for such violations. Imputing to Congress an intent to provide inmates with substantive protections in excess of those provided by the Equal Protection Clause not 21 only raises a troublesome constitutional question over the scope of Congress’ powers to enforce the Four- teenth Amendment, see City of Boerne v. Flores, 117 S.Ct. 2157 (1997), it also interjects the federal courts into the most complex questions of the States’ penolog- ical policies. The Court has repeatedly recognized that statutes should be construed to avoid serious constitutional questions “ ‘unless such [a] construction is plainly contrary to the intent of Congress.’” New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144, 170 (1992) (quoting Edward J. DeBartolo Corp. v. Florida Gulf Coast Building & Constr. Trades Council, 485 U.S. 568, 575 (1988) ); see also United States v. Jin Fuey Moy, 241 U.S. 394, 401 (1917) (“A statute must be con- strued, if fairly possible, so as to avoid not only the conclusion that it is unconstitutional, but also grave doubts upon that score.”). Because there are numer- ous indications in the statute that Congress did not intend for the ADA to apply to state prisoners, the Court should adopt a construction that avoids these constitutional questions. CONCLUSION The judgment of the court of appeals should be reversed. Respectfully submitted, RICHARD RUDA * Chief Counsel JAMES I. CROWLEY STATE AND LOCAL LEGAL CENTER 444 North Capitol Street, N.W. Suite 345 Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 434-4850 * Counsel of Record for the March 4, 1998 Amici Curiae --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385014_0128%3A12. Public record. Not legal advice.