Document: 536 U.S. 181 BARNES, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS MEMBER OF THE BOARD POLICE COMMISSIONERS KANSAS CITY MISSOURI, ET AL.v.GORMAN. No. 01-682. Supreme Court of the United States. Argued April 23, 2002. Decided June 17, CERTIORARI TO UNITED STATES COURT APPEALS FOR EIGHTH CIRCUIT Respondent, a paraplegic, suffered serious injuries that left him unable to work full time when, after arrest, he was transported Kansas City police station in van not equipped accommodate disabled. He sued petitioner officials and officers for discriminating against on basis his disability, violation § 202 Americans with Disabilities Act 1990 (ADA) 504 Rehabilitation 1973, by failing maintain appropriate policies arrest transportation persons spinal cord injuries. A jury awarded compensatory punitive damages, but District vacated as holding they are unavailable private suits brought under ADA Act. In reversing, Eighth Circuit found damages available "general rule" Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools, 503 U. S. 60, 70-71, "absent clear direction contrary Congress, federal courts have power award any relief" right. Held: Punitive may be These sections enforceable through causes action, whose remedies coextensive those action Title VI Civil Rights 1964. See 203 505(a)(2) invokes Congress's Spending Clause place conditions grant funds. This has regularly applied contract-law analogy defining scope conduct which funding recipients held liable money finding remedy available, legislation. The same applies determining remedies. is relief only if recipient notice that, accepting funding, it exposes itself such liability. generally subject explicitly provided relevant legislation also traditionally breach contract suits. mentions no remedies; contract. Nor could said have, merely funds, implicitly consented normally actions, indeterminate magnitude produce liability exceeding level funding. Because VI, follows Pp. 184-190. 257 F. 3d 738, reversed. SCALIA, J., delivered opinion Court, REHNQUIST, C. O'CONNOR, KENNEDY, SOUTER, THOMAS, JJ., joined. filed concurring opinion, joined, post, p. 190. STEVENS, an judgment, GINSBURG BREYER, 191. Lawrence Robbins argued cause petitioners. With briefs were Roy T. Englert, Jr., Alan E. Untereiner, Arnon D. Siegel, Dale H. Close. Gregory G. Garre States amicus curiae urging reversal. brief Solicitor General Olson, Assistant Attorneys Boyd McCallum, Deputy Clement, Jessica Dunsay Silver, B. Friel. Scott L. Nelson respondent. Brian Wolfman, John M. Simpson, Connie Knight Sieracki.* JUSTICE SCALIA Court. 1 We must decide whether (ADA), 104 Stat. 337, 42 12132 (1994 ed.), 87 394, 29 794(a). 2 * Respondent Jeffrey Gorman, confined wheelchair lacks voluntary control over lower torso, including bladder, forcing wear catheter attached urine bag around waist. May 1992, arrested trespass fighting bouncer at City, Missouri, nightclub. While waiting transport station, denied permission use restroom empty bag. When arrived, receive respondent's wheelchair. Over objection, removed from used seatbelt own belt strap narrow bench rear van. During ride respondent released seatbelt, fearing placed excessive pressure Eventually, other came loose fell floor, rupturing injuring shoulder back. driver, officer van, impossible lift respondent, fastened support remainder trip. Upon arriving booked, processed, released; later convicted misdemeanor trespass. After these events, medical problems — bladder infection, back pain, uncontrollable spasms paralyzed areas time. 3 suit petitioners members Board Police Commissioners, chief police, who drove Western Missouri. claimed had discriminated Act, 4 $1 million $1.2 damages. award, Appeals reversed, relying this Court's decision 70-71 (1992), stated cognizable pursuant statute." relief, held, because "an integral part common law tradition judicial arsenal," 745 (2001), Congress did nothing disturb enacting or amending statutes, id., 747. granted certiorari. 534 1103 (2002). II 5 Section prohibits discrimination disabled public entities; organizations, 794(b)(3). Both provisions action. declares "remedies, procedures, rights set forth [§ Act] shall remedies, subchapter provides" violations 202. 12133. turn, title 1964 ... available" 504, added, 92 2983, 794a(a)(2). Thus, 1964, 2000d et seq., racial federally funded programs activities. 6 Although does mention right our prior decisions implied e. g., Cannon University Chicago, 441 677, 703 (1979), acknowledged amendments statute, leaving "beyond dispute individuals sue enforce" Alexander Sandoval, 532 275, 280 (2001). It less what suit. Franklin, supra, 73, we recognized "the traditional presumption favor right," since IX Education Amendments 1972, 20 §§ 1681-1688, monetary available. (Emphasis added.) And interpreted consistently see Cannon, 694-698. however, describe "appropriate relief." take up question today. 7 Clause, Const., Art. I, 8, cl. 1, Davis Monroe Bd. Ed., 526 629, 640 (1999) (Title IX). repeatedly characterized statute "much nature contract: return [recipients] agree comply imposed conditions." Pennhurst State School Hospital Halderman, 451 17 (1981) (emphasis added);1 Davis, 640; Gebser Lago Vista Independent Dist., 524 274, 286 (1998); Guardians Assn. Serv. Comm'n New York 463 582, 599 (1983) (opinion White, J.); 632-633 (Marshall, dissenting); Lau Nichols, 414 563, 568-569 (1974). Just valid requires offer acceptance its terms, "[t]he legitimacy Congress' legislate spending rests [recipient] voluntarily knowingly accepts terms `contract.' Accordingly, intends impose condition moneys, do so unambiguously." Pennhurst, 17; Gebser, 287; S., 74. been careful imply all rules apply legislation, see, Bennett Kentucky Dept. 470 656, 669 (1985) I), cases third-party beneficiaries intentional violates 642, failure vague language describing objectives 24-25; and, implies attention official correct them actionable, unknown official, 290. 74-75. 8 applies, think, much Gebser: "Title IX's contractual implications construction remedies." 287. One implications, believe, relief," nature. Thus IX, contains express funds nevertheless 76, injunction, 711-712, forms See, Restatement (Second) Contracts 357 (1981); Williston, Law 1445-1450 (1920); J. Pomeroy, Treatise Specific Performance 1-5 (1879). Like indeed, fails even (hence Cannon). But unlike contract, Farnsworth, 12.8, pp. 192-201 (2d ed. 1998); 355; Sedgwick, Measure Damages 370 (8th 1891). 9 (if interpretive technique available) provision reasonably VI. Some authorities say parties would agreed adverted matters question. 7.16, 335, cited. More recent commentary suggests simply "compor[t] community standards fairness," Contracts, 204, Comment d; 334-336. Neither approach implication here actions magnitude. alone "might well exceed recipient's funding," 290; top disastrous. Not doubtful exposure unorthodox liability; accepted required condition. "Without doubt, potential one most significant factors school consider deciding funds." 656 (KENNEDY, dissenting). reason unusual disproportionate exposure, can hardly fairness implication. sum, concluded not, damages.2 10 Our conclusion consistent "well settled" rule "where legal invaded, provides general invasion, make good wrong done." Bell Hood, 327 678, 684 (1946); 66. federal-funds done provide obligation requires; "made good" when compensates Federal Government beneficiary (as case) loss caused failure. Guardians, 633 dissenting) ("When court concludes breached should enforce broken promise protecting expectation discriminate.... obvious way put position performed"). compensatory, therefore embraced within described Bell. 11 12 Act.3 makes unnecessary reach petitioners' alternative argument neither raised nor passed below4 invoking imposition government entities. Vermont Agency Natural Resources ex rel. Stevens, 529 765, 784-785 (2000); Newport Fact Concerts, Inc., 453 247, 262-263 (1981). judgment 13 ordered. Notes: Briefs ofamici reversal Hawaii al. Earl I. Anzai, Attorney Hawaii, Dorothy Sellers Adina K. Cunningham, General, joined Robert R. Rigsby, Corporation Counsel Columbia, their respective follows: A. Butterworth Florida, Steve Carter Indiana, Steven Rowe Maine, Joseph Curran, Maryland, Don Stenberg Nebraska, Frankie Sue Del Papa Nevada, David Samson Jersey, Wayne Stenehjem North Dakota, Betty Montgomery Ohio, W. Drew Edmondson Oklahoma, Hardy Myers Oregon, Mark Shurtleff Utah, Hoke MacMillan Wyoming; California Municipalities Samuel Jackson, Pamela Albers, Michael Colantuono, Ronald Ball, Dean, Cook, Charles Dickerson III, Joel Kuperberg, Philip Kohn, Sanford Todd, Shannon, Soldani, William Conners, P. Priamos, Hadden Roth, James Penman, George Rios, Brien Farrell, Valerie Armento, Debra Corbett, Wallace Wortham, Chinn, Karl Cardozo, Diaz, Rogers, Wolfe, Harry Morrison, Jr.; International City/County Management Association Richard Ruda Crowley. White Trial Lawyers America amici affirmance. STEVENS believes reliance onPennhurst "inappropriate" case addressed imposing affirmative obligations whereas "simply prohibit[s] certain discriminatory conduct." Post, 192 judgment). explain why thinks distinction played role application principles 24-25 ought difference. Whatever reason, Pennhurst's IX); 287 (1998) (same). cannot understand STEVENS' Chicken-Little statement today's "has potentially far-reaching consequences go beyond issues briefed case."Post, 192-193. principle expressed many times before: "contractual nature" added). imply, example, raise. Since identify "far-reaching consequenc[e]" might follow today, occupying ground long surely deserve praise "fearless crusaders," 193, n. 2. analysis carry latter identifies "tortious conduct."Post, 192, Perhaps over, unequivocally otherwise. clearer in" 505(a)(2), explains explicit discussion ADA's status "non Clause" tort quite irrelevant. likewise theory presented belowPost, 191-192. raised, below on, applicability 60 presented. That IX) cited contract-analogy acknowledgment requirement. argue (quite correctly) failed rely uses, (1981), Brief 41-43, initiated 35-41. 14 whom O'CONNOR joins, concurring. 15 I join instance, statute. points out, range orders "indeterminate magnitude," ante, 188, untethered compensable harm, thus pose concern anticipated. realize, read acknowledging, fail give helpfully answers questions recovery proper measure 16 BREYER join, judgment. reversed three different theories: (1) 247 absent congressional intent contrary, municipalities damages; (2) text legislative history 1973 indicates intend authorize either statute;1 (3) applying reasoning akin statutes enacted defined contracts, allowed recover 18 Petitioners first third theories Appeals. Nevertheless, presents narrowest resolving case, am convinced exercise restraint immune Newport. There is, justification out broader below. extension of, particularly inappropriate. 19 faced Developmentally Disabled Assistance Bill 6010, participating Relying important between statutory prohibited kinds state conduct" "impose fund services," 16-17, 6010 Clause. then "affirmative obligations" "hardly considered `condition' Id., 23. "When States, usually far more substantial contribution defray costs.... defies sense, short, suppose massive States." 24. before us today involves municipality's conduct. prohibition two which, ADA, says about breach. believe relies necessarily tortious record. Moreover, novel been, most, useful case.2 light fact addition defendants clearly Newport, expansive asserted 21 although concur case. adopted Sixth inMoreno Consolidated Rail Corp., 99 782, 788-792 (1996). discussed rejected Circuit, seeWestside Mothers Haveman, 289 852 (2002), order "supreme land." Westside 133 Supp. 2d 549, 561 (ED Mich. 2001). fortunately cabin stating "[w]e raise," 189, 2, whenever reaches adopt broad early stages litigation, implicates issue, sure unforeseen consequences. unnecessarily, tends assume legislative, rather than judicial, role. Reliance narrower create risk. persuaded "Chicken-Little," characterization restraint; rhetorical device appropriately fearless crusaders.

Category: 7