Opinion ID: 770527
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Clear and Unequivocal Statement

Text: 29 As a preliminary matter, we note that Popovich's claim arises under Title II, Part A, of the ADA. Title II, Part B, of the ADA governs public transportation, and we have not had occasion to consider the provisions of Part B in this case. We intend our references to the ADA in this opinion to refer solely to Title II, Part A, of the ADA. 30 To determine whether Congress validly abrogated State immunity under Title II of the ADA, we must resolve two issues: (1) whether Congress unequivocally expressed its intent to abrogate the immunity; and (2) if it did, whether Congress acted pursuant to a valid grant of constitutional authority. Kimel v. Florida Bd. OfRegents, 120 S. Ct. 631, 640 (2000). As to the first question--whether Congress unequivocally stated its intent to abrogate the immunity under Title II--there is no question that it did. See Nelson, 170 F.3d at 647 n.6. In 42 U.S.C. § 12202, Congress expressly stated: A State shall not be immune under the eleventh amendment to the Constitution of the United States from an action in Federal or State court of competent jurisdiction for a violation of the ADA. Id. In addition, Title II's substantive requirements govern the conduct of any public entity, defined to include any State or local government. 42 U.S.C. § 12131(1)(A) (emphasis added). 31