Document: 524 U.S. 206118 S.Ct. 1952141 L.Ed.2d 215 PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Petitioners,v.Ronald R. YESKEY. No. 97-634. Supreme Court of the United States Argued April 28, 1998. Decided June 15, Syllabus * Respondent Yeskey was sentenced to 18 36 months in a Pennsylvania correctional facility, but recommended for placement Motivational Boot Camp first-time offenders, successful completion which would have led his parole just six months. When he refused admission because medical history hypertension, sued petitioners, Pennsylvania's Department Corrections and several officials, alleging that exclusion violated Americans with Disabilities Act 1990 (ADA), Title II prohibits "public entity'' from discriminating against "qualified individual disability'' on account disability, 42 U.S.C. §12132. The District dismissed failure state claim, holding ADA inapplicable prison inmates, Third Circuit reversed. Held: State prisons fall squarely within II's statutory definition entity,'' includes "any . instrumentality or local government.'' §12131(1)(B). Unlike situation obtained Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 452, 111 2395, 115 410, there is no ambiguous exception renders coverage uncertain. For reason plain-statement requirement articulated Gregory, if applicable federal intrusion upon administration prisons, has been met. Petitioners' attempts derive an intent not cover references "benefits'' programs, individual'' are rejected; some such as this one, benefits restricted qualified inmates. statute's lack ambiguity also requires rejection petitioners' appeal doctrine constitutional doubt. does address issue whether applying exercise Congress's power under either Commerce Clause Fourteenth Amendment it addressed by neither lower courts. Pp. ____-____. 118 F.3d 168, affirmed. SCALIA, J., delivered opinion unanimous Court. Paul A. Tufano, Harrisburg, PA, petitioner. Donald Specter, Washington, DC, respondent. Irving L. Gornstein, amicus curiae, special leave Justice SCALIA 1 question before us 104 Stat. 337, §12131 seq., individual's see §12132, covers inmates prisons. Ronald inmate, May 1994 serve facility. sentencing court be placed release See Pa. Ann., Tit. 61, §1121 seq. (Purdon Supp.1998). Because however, admission. He filed suit Commonwealth department ADA. Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 12(b)(6), prisons; reversed, 168 (1997); we granted certiorari, 522 U.S.----, 876, 139 865 (1998). 2 Petitioners argue prisoners covered same held 410 (1991), judges were Age Discrimination Employment 1967 (ADEA), 29 §621 relied canon construction absent "unmistakably clear'' expression "alter usual balance between Federal Government,'' will interpret statute preserve rather than destroy States' "substantial sovereign powers.'' U.S., at 460-461, S.Ct., 2400-2401 (citations internal quotation marks omitted). It may well exercising ultimate control over management like establishing qualifications government traditional essential function subject rule Gregory. "One primary functions government,'' said, "is preservation societal order through enforcement criminal law, maintenance penal institutions part task.'' Procunier Martinez, 416 396, 412, 94 1800, 1811, 40 224 (1974), overruled other grounds, Thornburgh Abbott, 490 401, 414, 109 1874, 1882, 459 (1989). "It difficult imagine activity stronger interest,'' Preiser Rodriguez, 411 475, 491, 93 1827, 1837, 439 (1973). 3 Assuming, without deciding, govern application think amply met: language unmistakeably its coverage. here comparable There, although ADEA plainly employees, contained ""appointee[s] policymaking level''' made impossible "conclude cover[ed] appointed judges.'' 467, 2404. Here, any could cast into provides that: 4 "Subject provisions subchapter, disability shall, excluded participation denied services, activities public entity, subjected discrimination entity.'' 5 department, agency, purpose district, 6 contend phrase "benefits creates ambiguity, do provide "programs, activities'' those terms ordinarily understood. We disagree. Modern many recreational "activities,'' "services,'' educational vocational "programs,'' all least theoretically "benefit'' (and disabled "excluded in''). Block Rutherford, 468 576, 580, 3227, 3229-3230, 82 438 (1984) (referring "contact visitation program''); Hudson Palmer, 517, 552, 3194, 3214, 393 (discussing "rehabilitative programs services''); Olim Wakinekona, 461 238, 246, 103 1741, 1745-1746, 75 813 (1983) "appropriate offenders''). Indeed, very case refers "program.'' §1123 text basis distinguishing these provided entities 7 disagree contention term insofar concerns prisoners. defines include anyone 8 "who, reasonable modifications rules, policies, practices, removal architectural, communication, transportation barriers, provision auxiliary aids meets eligibility requirements receipt services §12131(2). 9 words "eligibility'' "participation'' imply voluntariness applicant who seeks benefit State, thus connote being their will. This wrong two counts: First, voluntariness. See, e.g., Webster's New International Dictionary 831 (2d ed. 1949) ("eligible'': "Fitted chosen elected; legally morally suitable; as, eligible candidate''); id., 1782 ("participate'': "To share common others; partake; share, debate''). While "eligible'' individuals "participate'' voluntarily activities, others they mandatory. A drug addict convicted possession, example, might, sentence, required treatment program only addicts "eligible.'' And secondly, even did voluntariness, still true "activities'' them voluntary. law library, service use activity), free take leave. Cf. Gabel Lynaugh, 835 F.2d 124, 125, n. (C.A.5 1988) (per curiam) ("pro se civil rights litigation become prisoners''). In hand, governing makes clear §1126(a) Supp.1998) ("An inmate make motivational boot camp selection committee permission participate §1126(c) (" [c]onditio[n]'' "participa[tion]'' "agree bound by'' certain "terms conditions''). 10 Finally, petitioners point out statement findings purpose, §12101, mention That perhaps questionable, since provision's reference "in critical areas institutionalization,'' §12101(a)(3), can thought institutions. But assuming true, further proves, contend, Congress "envisio[n] applied prisoners,'' Brief 13-14, context unambiguous irrelevant. As said before, fact ""applied situations expressly anticipated demonstrate ambiguity. demonstrates breadth.''' Sedima, S.P.R.L. Imrex Co., 473 479, 499, 105 3275, 3286, 87 346 (1985) (citation 11 Our conclusion causes reject doubt, statutes avoid "grave doubtful questions,'' ex rel. Attorney General Delaware & 213 366, 408, 527, 535-536, 53 L.Ed. 836 (1909). enters "where susceptible constructions,'' ibid. disregard invocation title, "Public Services,'' 337. " [T]he title cannot limit plain meaning text. interpretive purposes, [it is] when [it] shed[s] light word phrase.'' Trainmen Baltimore Ohio 331 519, 528-529, 67 1387, 1392, 91 1646 (1947). 12 another presented petitioners: Clause, compare Printz States, 521 ----, 117 2365, 138 914 (1997), Garcia San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, 469 528, 1005, 83 1016 (1985), §5 Amendment, City Boerne Flores, 2157, 624 (1997). raise brief, Petitioner 22-23, nor Appeals, where raised issue. "Where issues considered consider them.'' Adickes S.H. Kress 398 144, 147, 2, 90 1598, 1602, 26 142 (1970) Dothard Rawlinson, 433 321, 323, 1, 97 2720, 2724, 786 (1977); Duignan 274 195, 200, 47 566, 568, 71 996 (1927). decline so here. 13 14 unambiguously extends judgment Appeals 15 ordered. syllabus constitutes prepared Reporter Decisions convenience reader. Detroit Timber Lumber 200 282, 287, 50 499.

Category: 1