Editorial: Disabilities law and state prisons

The U.S. Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision on Monday, used solid reasoning in finding that state prisoners are covered by the federal law prohibiting discrimination against people who have disabilities.

The state of Pennsylvania was sued by an inmate because he was denied admittance to a prison boot camp after he failed a physical examination because of hypertension. The inmate, Ronald Yeskey, claimed that the exclusion from the boot camp violated the Americans with Disabilities Act. A number of states, including Nevada, asserted that Congress never intended that state prisons be covered by the law when it passed the ADA in 1990.

But the Supreme Court disagreed, noting that a section of the law applies to government agencies, banning any "public entity" from discriminating against someone with a disability. "The statute's language unmistakably includes state prisons and prisoners within its coverage," conservative Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in the opinion for the court. The law "provides no basis for distinguishing these programs, services and activities from those provided by public entities that are not prisons."

Attorney General Frankie Sue Del Papa fears that this could set a precedent that would result in inmates filing frivolous lawsuits, and even end up costing the state millions of dollars in extra costs to comply. In addition, Del Papa said that while the disabilities law is well-intentioned, it is at cross purposes with the rights of states to preserve the safety and security of prison employees and inmates. "For example, it may not be appropriate to supply a prosthetic device to a violent, but disabled inmate -- not because the state lacks sensitivity to the inmate's plight, but because a heavy prosthetic device may be used as a weapon and thereby pose security risks," Del Papa claimed.

Del Papa has been an articulate advocate on behalf of the nation's attorneys general in bringing to the public's attention unnecessary lawsuits brought by inmates. One of the most notorious instances of a frivolous lawsuit is an inmate who sued because he demanded chunky peanut butter but was given regular instead. But in the case of disabled inmates, Del Papa has overreacted in stating the severity of the court's decision. Does she really expect someone missing a leg to drag himself across a floor instead of being able to use a prosthesis with which to get around?

If, in fact, the reason for denying a prosthesis is because of a genuine fear that it would be used violently, there are alternatives. Mary Givens, director of vocational services at Opportunity Village in Las Vegas, told the Sun's Art Nadler that the law only requires reasonable accommodations. If a prisoner is dangerous, a wheelchair could be substituted for a prosthesis to meet the requirements of the law, according to Givens. "You don't have to put other people at risk. And you don't have to provide the most expensive or elaborate way to meet the requirements," Givens said.

There have been occasions when judges have overreached in carving out unnecessary privileges for inmates, but the facts of this case demonstrate that prisons must be treated as public entities, and disabled prisoners should be eligible for protection under federal disabilities law. Based on the law, it is hard to imagine the Supreme Court coming to any other conclusion.

Despite Del Papa's fears, it's tough to get overly excited about the Supreme Court's ruling. No one is suggesting that inmates be coddled. The Supreme Court decision does not give inmates special privileges. It only ensures that disabled inmates will be afforded reasonable access to most prison programs.

archive