Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 682

524US2

Unit: $U96

[09-15-00 14:39:49] PAGES PGT: OPIN

Cite as: 524 U. S. 624 (1998)

637

Opinion of the Court

cells/mm3, death soon follows. Cohen & Volberding, AIDS
Knowledge Base 4.1–9; Saag, AIDS: Etiology 207–209.

In light of the immediacy with which the virus begins to
damage the infected person’s white blood cells and the sever-
ity of the disease, we hold it is an impairment from the mo-
infection with HIV
ment of infection. As noted earlier,
causes immediate abnormalities in a person’s blood, and the
infected person’s white cell count continues to drop through-
out the course of the disease, even when the attack is concen-
trated in the lymph nodes.
In light of these facts, HIV in-
fection must be regarded as a physiological disorder with a
constant and detrimental effect on the infected person’s
hemic and lymphatic systems from the moment of infection.
HIV infection satisﬁes the statutory and regulatory deﬁni-
tion of a physical
impairment during every stage of the
disease.

2

The statute is not operative, and the deﬁnition not satis-
ﬁed, unless the impairment affects a major life activity. Re-
spondent’s claim throughout this case has been that the HIV
infection placed a substantial limitation on her ability to re-
produce and to bear children. App. 14; 912 F. Supp., at 586;
107 F. 3d, at 939. Given the pervasive, and invariably fatal,
course of the disease, its effect on major life activities of
many sorts might have been relevant to our inquiry. Re-
spondent and a number of amici make arguments about
HIV’s profound impact on almost every phase of the infected
person’s life. See Brief for Respondent Abbott 24–27; Brief
for American Medical Association as Amicus Curiae 20;
Brief for Infectious Diseases Society of America et al. as
Amici Curiae 7–11.
In light of these submissions, it may
seem legalistic to circumscribe our discussion to the activity
of reproduction. We have little doubt that had different
parties brought the suit they would have maintained that an
HIV infection imposes substantial limitations on other major
life activities.