Biting the Hand that Feeds Them-State Prisons and the ADA: Responding to Amos v. Maryland Department of Public Safety & Correctional Services

I. INTRODUCTION President George Bush signed the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)1 into law on July 26, 1990. The Act was meant to be an extension of the Rehabilitation Act2 which applied only to government contractors and recipients of federal assistance. The language of the two statutes is nearly identical and courts analyze claims under both acts in a similar manner.3 Proponents of the ADA saw it as a "declaration of independence" for disabled citizens.4 Critics, however, were not satisfied with the language of the Act as ratified by Congress and predicted a flood of litigation because of the broad language used.5 As a result of the Act's broad language and resulting widespread litigation, courts have been forced to define the Act's limits. While most of the litigation has centered around the employment context, which is covered in Title II of the Act, several recent cases have considered whether the ADA applies to state prison facilities. Three cases addressing this precise question were decided during the summer of 1997 alone.6 In Amos u. Maryland Department of Public Safety the Fourth Circuit held that the ADA simply does not apply to state prison facilities.7 In contrast, in Yeskey v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Corrections8 and Crawford v. Indiana Department of Corrections,9 cases heard in the Third and Seventh Circuits respectively, both courts held that the ADA applies in the state prison context.10 The primary conflict between the circuits concerns interpretation of the ADA's broad statutory language and whether Congress clearly stated its intention in the ADA to usurp state authority and thus require its application to state prisons. Further, if this was Congress' intent, does Congress have the authority, within our federalist system, to regulate state governments in the manner prescribed in the Act? In Amos, the Fourth Circuit held that the language of the ADA did not unmistakably state whether the statutory provisions apply to state prisons.11 The court went on to suggest that even if Congress had stated with unmistakable clarity that the ADA applies to state prisons, it doubted that Congress had the power to do so in accordance with principles of federalism.12 The court justified its result by relying on what it deemed to be the plain and clear text of the ADA.13 In addition, the court outlined the importance of federalism, specifically in relation to the business of running state correctional facilities.14 These issues are important for several reasons. The recent decision in Amos caused a split among the circuits, which makes it ripe for a Supreme Court ruling. In addition, the ultimate answer of whether the ADA applies to state prisons will have significant bearing on contemporary understanding of statutory construction/interpretation guidelines and federalism. Finally, applying the ADA to state prisons places a noticeable financial strain on state prison budgets, employees, and facilities. Part II of this Note outlines the background and development of the law regarding application of the ADA to state prisons. It also summarizes the contours of the debate between the circuits regarding the clear statement doctrine and federalism. These general doctrines and other related issues are set forth according to the current law. Part III gives the facts of Amos and discusses the analysis used by the Fourth Circuit. Part IV explains the court's reasoning and appraises the value of that reasoning in light of recent cases on this and related issues. It suggests that the logic proffered by the Amos court is appropriate and imperative in preserving powers retained by the states under the Constitution. Part V concludes that the ADA should not apply to state correctional facilities in compliance with principles of statutory interpretation and federalism. II. BACKGROUND A. The Americans With Disabilities Act-History, Purpose and Function The ADA was passed in 1990 in order to safeguard the disabled from widespread discrimination. …