United States v. Georgia

United States v. Georgia

Opinion

 [*153]  [**878]   Justice Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court.

We consider whether a disabled inmate in a state prison may sue the State for money damages under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA, or Act), 104 Stat. 337, as [****4]  amended, 42 U.S.C. § 12131 et seq. (2000 ed. and Supp. II).

Title II of the ADA provides that ] "no qualified individual with a disability shall,  [**879]  by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity." § 12132 (2000 ed.). ] A "'qualified individual with a disability'" is defined as "an individual with a disability who, with or without reasonable modifications to rules, policies, or practices, the removal of architectural, communication, or transportation barriers, or the provision of auxiliary aids and services,  [*154]  meets the essential eligibility requirements for the receipt of services or the participation in programs or activities provided by a public entity." § 12131(2).  The Act defines "'public entity'" to include "any State or local government" and "any department, agency, . . . or other instrumentality of a State," § 12131(1). We have previously held that this term includes state prisons. See  Pennsylvania Dep't of Corrections v. Yeskey, 524 U.S. 206, 210, 118 S. Ct. 1952, 141 L. Ed. 2d 215 (1998). Title II authorizes [****5]  suits by private citizens for money damages against public entities that violate § 12132. See 42 U.S.C. § 12133 (incorporating by reference 29 U.S.C. § 794a).

] In enacting the ADA, Congress "invoke[d] the sweep of congressional authority, including the power to enforce the fourteenth amendment . . . ." 42 U.S.C. § 12101(b)(4).  Moreover, the Act provides that ] "[a] State shall not be immune under the eleventh amendment to the Constitution of the United States from an action in [a] Federal or State court of competent jurisdiction for a violation of this chapter." § 12202. We ] have accepted this latter statement as an unequivocal expression of Congress's intent to abrogate state sovereign immunity. See  Board of Trustees of Univ. of Ala. v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356, 363-364, 121 S. Ct. 955, 148 L. Ed. 2d 866 (2001).

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.