Home
Housing Pre-Application
About Us
Calendar
Newsletters
Announcements
In The News
Photo Gallery
FAQs
Links
Locations And Contacts
Norman's Desk
Housing Pre-Application
About Us
Calendar
Newsletters
Announcements
In The News
Photo Gallery
FAQs
Links
Locations And Contacts
Norman's Desk
As a taxpaying citizen with a disability of New Jersey, I’m both pleased and ashamed to share the story below with you.
Yes, I’m ashamed that a governor of this state would permit the attorney general to claim that the Americans with Disabilities Act was unconstitutional. I’m as equally ashamed that this baseless argument was used in an effort to keep people with disabilities locked away in State-run institutions in clear violation of the precedent established by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Olmstead Decision.
I’m also pleased to share this story because this lame attempt to use a spurious argument to avoid New Jersey’s mandated obligation to get people out of institutions was summarily dismissed.
U.S. Department of Justice Files Brief Challenging the State of New Jersey's Claim that the Americans with Disabilities Act is Unconstitutional - Judge Denies State's Motion to Dismiss
The State of New Jersey, claiming that the Americans with Disabilities Act is unconstitutional, sought dismissal of Disability Rights New Jersey's waiting list lawsuit The State's claim was made in their motion to dismiss the litigation brought by DRNJ contesting the lack of community-based services for people on the Division of Developmental Disabilities' waiting list for services. The State alleged that Congress lacked the authority under the U.S. Constitution to enact anti-disability discrimination legislation binding on the State of New Jersey. A brief filed in the action on behalf of the U.S. Department of Justice disputed the State's legal claims.
In order to contest the constitutionality of the ADA, the State argued that historically there was no pattern of discrimination by the states against people with disabilities and, if there was, the ADA is a disproportionate response. The State also sought to avoid liability under the Rehabilitation Act, claiming that it had no expectation that the integration mandate would reach individuals currently residing in the community seeking to avoid institutionalization. The DOJ brief noted that the U.S. Supreme Court has previously concluded that "Congress enacted Title 11 of the ADA against a backdrop of pervasive unequal treatment in the administration of state services and programs, including systemic deprivation of fundamental rights," Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509, 524 (2004), and that the integration mandate was a reasonable proportionate response. The DOJ brief also supported the proposition that the integration mandate and avoiding unnecessary institutionalization apply to both individuals currently in institutions and those in the community seeking community-based services in order to avoid institutionalization.
The Court recently denied the State's motion to dismiss without reaching the constitutional issue.
In order to contest the constitutionality of the ADA, the State argued that historically there was no pattern of discrimination by the states against people with disabilities and, if there was, the ADA is a disproportionate response. The State also sought to avoid liability under the Rehabilitation Act, claiming that it had no expectation that the integration mandate would reach individuals currently residing in the community seeking to avoid institutionalization. The DOJ brief noted that the U.S. Supreme Court has previously concluded that "Congress enacted Title 11 of the ADA against a backdrop of pervasive unequal treatment in the administration of state services and programs, including systemic deprivation of fundamental rights," Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509, 524 (2004), and that the integration mandate was a reasonable proportionate response. The DOJ brief also supported the proposition that the integration mandate and avoiding unnecessary institutionalization apply to both individuals currently in institutions and those in the community seeking community-based services in order to avoid institutionalization.
The Court recently denied the State's motion to dismiss without reaching the constitutional issue.
Posts By Date
2009
- October (1)
- September (1)
- July (1)