Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 703.0

524US2

Unit: $U96

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

658

BRAGDON v. ABBOTT

Opinion of Rehnquist, C. J.

that her asymptomatic HIV status brings her within the ﬁrst
deﬁnition of a “disability.” 1 She must therefore demon-
strate, inter alia, that she was (1) physically or mentally
impaired and that such impairment (2) substantially limited
(3) one or more of her major life activities.

Petitioner does not dispute that asymptomatic HIV-
positive status is a physical impairment.
I therefore assume
this to be the case, and proceed to the second and third statu-
tory requirements for “disability.”

According to the Court, the next question is “whether
reproduction is a major life activity.” Ante, at 638. That,
however, is only half of the relevant question. As men-
tioned above, the ADA’s deﬁnition of a “disability” requires
that the major life activity at issue be one “of such indi-
vidual.”
§ 12102(2)(A). The Court truncates the question,
perhaps because there is not a shred of record evidence indi-
cating that, prior to becoming infected with HIV, respond-
ent’s major life activities included reproduction 2 (assuming

1 Respondent alternatively urges us to ﬁnd that she is disabled in that
she is “regarded as” such.
42 U. S. C. § 12102(2)(C). We did not, how-
ever, grant certiorari on that question. While respondent can advance
arguments not within the question presented in support of the judgment
below, Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Thurston, 469 U. S. 111, 119, n. 14
(1985); Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U. S. 471, 475, n. 6 (1970), we have
It was the United
rarely addressed arguments not asserted below.
States, not respondent, that asserted the “regarded as” argument below.
The Court of Appeals declined to address it, as should we.

In any event, the “regarded as” prong requires a plaintiff to demon-
strate that the defendant regarded him as having “such an impairment”
42 U. S. C.
(i. e., one that substantially limits a major life activity).
§ 12102(2)(C) (emphasis added). Respondent has offered no evidence to
support the assertion that petitioner regarded her as having an impair-
ment that substantially limited her ability to reproduce, as opposed to
viewing her as simply impaired.

2 Calling reproduction a major life activity is somewhat inartful. Re-
production is not an activity at all, but a process. One could be described
as breathing, walking, or performing manual tasks, but a human being (as
opposed to a copier machine or a gremlin) would never be described as
I assume that in using the term reproduction, respondent
reproducing.
and the Court are referring to the numerous discrete activities that com-