Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Court Hears Disabled Prisoner Case >> WASHINGTON (AP) -- Several Supreme Court justices > voiced skepticism Tuesday about whether state prison > inmates are excluded from the protections of a federal > law that bans discrimination against the disabled. > > The court heard arguments in a case brought by a > Pennsylvania prisoner with slightly elevated blood > pressure who sued over his exclusion from a rigorous > boot camp that would have allowed him to cut short his > sentence. > > The 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the > prisoner, Ronald Yeskey, that the rejection could > amount to a violation of the Americans with > Disabilities Act. > > State officials argue they are exempt from applying the > federal law to Yeskey and other inmates. > > If the nation's highest court rules in Yeskey's favor, > already costly prison systems nationwide could be > required to make millions of dollars in renovations to > accommodate inmates who use wheelchairs or are > otherwise disabled. > > Justice Sandra Day O'Connor acknowledged that security > and other concerns may be grounds for denying disabled > prisoners access to some programs, but she questioned > Pennsylvania's contention that states are entitled to a > blanket exemption for prisoners. > > O'Connor noted that the law, which requires public > entities to make ``reasonable'' accommodations for > disabled individuals, defines public entities as ``any > state or local government.'' > > ``What in the language I've read gets you off the hook > for prisoners?'' she asked a lawyer for Pennsylvania. > > Lower courts already have fielded disputes over, among > other things, the right of a prisoner with a hernia and > other medical problems to have cable television in his > cell. > > The lower courts have split on whether the law applies > to prisoners, who are stripped of some rights such as > voting, traveling and assembling. > > Yeskey sued the state over its refusal to enroll him in > a motivational boot camp operated by the state > Department of Corrections in remote north-central > Pennsylvania. He served 32 months of his 18-to-36-month > sentence for drunken driving, escape and resisting > arrest. Yeskey now is out of prison and occasionally > works in construction. > > The state is not challenging whether Yeskey's medical > condition constituted a disability and has focused its > arguments on balancing the powers of states and the > federal government. > > Paul Tufano argued for the state that the 1994 law > should not apply to state prisoners because Congress > never specified that it would. He said courts have > given states some leeway in treating prisoners > differently. > > But Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg noted that the language > appears to be ``sweepingly encompassing'' and does not > specifically exempt prisoners. > > Other justices as well sounded sympathetic to Yeskey's > arguments. At one point, Justice Antonin Scalia > recapped Yeskey's position and prompted his lawyer, > Donald Specter, to offer, ``I couldn't have said it > more clearly.'' > > In rare remarks from the bench, Justice Clarence Thomas > questioned how far states would have to go to > accommodate disabled prisoners, asking whether > individuals could claim claustrophobia as a disability. > > A decision is expected by July. > > The case is Pennsylvania vs. Yeskey, 97-634. -- Two rules in life: 1. Don't tell people everything you know. 2. Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
