|
|
Pennsylvania Dept. Of Corrections v. Yeskey, 524 U.S. 206 (1998)
Contents:
Show Summary
Hide Summary
General SummaryThis case is from a collection containing the full text of over 16,000 Supreme Court cases from 1793 to the present. The body of Supreme Court decisions are, effectively, the final interpretation of the Constitution. Only an amendment to the Constitution can permanently overturn an interpretation and this has happened only four times in American history.
Pennsylvania Dept. Of Corrections v. Yeskey, 524 U.S. 206 (1998)
Pennsylvania Department of Corrections v. Yeskey No. 97-634 Argued April 28, 1998 Decided June 15, 1998 524 U.S. 206
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
Syllabus
Respondent Yeskey was sentenced to 18 to 36 months in a Pennsylvania correctional facility, but was recommended for placement in a Motivational Boot Camp for first-time offenders, the successful completion of which would have led to his parole in just six months. When he was refused admission because of his medical history of hypertension, he sued petitioners, Pennsylvania’s Department of Corrections and several officials, alleging that the exclusion violated the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), Title II of which prohibits a "public entity" from discriminating against a "qualified individual with a disability" on account of that disability, 42 U.S.C. § 12132. The District Court dismissed for failure to state a claim, holding the ADA inapplicable to state prison inmates, but the Third Circuit reversed.
Held: state prisons fall squarely within Title II’s statutory definition of "public entity," which includes "any . . . instrumentality of a State . . . or local government." § 12131(1)(B). Unlike the situation that obtained in Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452, there is no ambiguous exception that renders the coverage uncertain. For that reason, the plain statement requirement articulated in Gregory, if applicable to federal intrusion upon the administration of state prisons, has been met. Petitioners’ attempts to derive an intent not to cover prisons from the statutory references to the "benefits" of programs, and to "qualified individual" are rejected; some prison programs, such as this one, have benefits and are restricted to qualified inmates. The statute’s lack of ambiguity also requires rejection of petitioners’ appeal to the doctrine of constitutional doubt. The Court does not address the issue whether applying the ADA to state prisons is a constitutional exercise of Congress’s power under either the Commerce Clause or the Fourteenth Amendment because it was addressed by neither of the lower courts. Pp. 208-213.
118 F.3d 168 affirmed.
SCALIA, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," Pennsylvania Dept. Of Corrections v. Yeskey, 524 U.S. 206 (1998) in 524 U.S. 206 524 U.S. 208. Original Sources, accessed November 22, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=PBUTMMUAP8IJAL6.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." Pennsylvania Dept. Of Corrections v. Yeskey, 524 U.S. 206 (1998), in 524 U.S. 206, page 524 U.S. 208. Original Sources. 22 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=PBUTMMUAP8IJAL6.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in Pennsylvania Dept. Of Corrections v. Yeskey, 524 U.S. 206 (1998). cited in 1998, 524 U.S. 206, pp.524 U.S. 208. Original Sources, retrieved 22 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=PBUTMMUAP8IJAL6.
|