Home Menu ↓
Clicking on our sponsor links helps insure continued free access to this website.
Please support our efforts by visiting our sponsors:

 

Tennessee v. Lane

Docket No.: 02-1667
Argued: January 13, 2004
Decided: May 17, 2004

Topics:

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Civil Rights, Federalism, Natural Resources, ADA, Age Discrimination in Employment Act, Americans with Disabilities Act, Article I, Bankruptcy, Bankruptcy Code, Bill of Rights, Civil Rights Act, Civil Rights Act of 1964, Commerce Clause, Confrontation Clause, Constitutional Law, Discrimination in Employment, Due Process, ERISA, Eighteenth Amendment, Eighth Amendment, Eleventh Amendment, Equal Protection Clause, Fifteenth Amendment, First Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, Free Exercise, Internal Revenue Code, Labor Department, Necessary and Proper, Sixth Amendment, Thirteenth Amendment, Voting Rights Act of 1965, age discrimination, antitrust, disparate impact, equitable relief, habeas, judicial review, jury selection, patent, pension plan, public education, public schools, racial discrimination, sex discrimination, sovereign immunity, stare decisis

PartyNames: Tennessee v. George Lane, et al.
Petitioner: Tennessee
Respondent: George Lane, et al.

Court Below: United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Citation: CA 6, 315 F.3d 680. QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether Title II of the Americans wi th Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C.§§12131-12165 (2002), exceeds Congress's auth ority under section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, thereby failing validly to abrogate the states'Eleventh Amendment immunity from private damage claims.
Supreme Court Docket

Tennessee
v.
George Lane, et al.
541 U.S. 509 (2004)
Consideration Limited:

Limited to question 1 presented by the petition.

Question Presented:

1. Whether Title II of the Americans wi th Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C.§§12131-12165 (2002), exceeds Congress's auth ority under section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, thereby failing validly to abrogate the states'Eleventh Amendment immunity from private damage claims. 2. Whether the abrogation analysis under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131-12165 (2002), differs when anindividual Title II claim is purporte dly tied to due process concerns rather than equal protection concerns. CERT. GRANTED: 6/23/03 Limited to question 1 presented by the petition.

Question:

Did the Americans with Disabilities Act violate the sovereign immunity doctrine of the 11th Amendment when, based on Congress's 14th Amendment enforcement powers of the Due Process clause, it allowed individuals to sue states for denying them services based on their disabilities?

Note:

. CA 6, 315 F.3d 680.

Tennessee v. Lane
ORAL ARGUMENT

January 13, 2004

Holding: affirmed
Decision: Decision: 5 votes for Lane, 4 vote(s) against
Opinion By:
Database Connection failed: SQLSTATE[HY000] [1045] Access denied for user 'restauz8_sophi'@'localhost' (using password: YES)