Tennessee v. Lane: Difference between revisions
From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
(Created page with "{{Infobox Case Brief |court=U.S. Supreme Court |citation=541 U.S. 509 1978 (2004) |date=2004 |subject=Constitutional Law |appealed_from= |case_treatment=No |overturned= |parti...") |
Lost Student (talk | contribs) m (Text replacement - "|case_treatment=No " to "") |
||
Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
|subject=Constitutional Law | |subject=Constitutional Law | ||
|appealed_from= | |appealed_from= | ||
|overturned= | |overturned= | ||
|partially_overturned= | |partially_overturned= |
Latest revision as of 03:43, July 14, 2023
Tennessee v. Lane | |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
---|---|
Citation | 541 U.S. 509 1978 (2004) |
Date decided | 2004 |
Facts
Congress passed Title II of the Disabilities Act of 1990, which provides that “no qualified individual with a disability shall, 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.”
Issues
Whether Title II of the Disabilities Act exceeds Congress’s power under section 5 of the 14th Amendment.
Holding
Title II’s requirement of program accessibility is congruent and proportional to its object of enforcing the right of access to the courts, and is a reasonable prophylactic measure, reasonably targeted to a legitimate end.
Rule
To determine whether Congress may abrogate a State’s Eleventh Amendment immunity, the court must consider 1) whether Congress unequivocally expressed its intent to abrogate that immunity; and 2) if it did, whether Congress acted pursuant to a valid grant of constitutional authority.