Pennsylvania Dept. Correction v. Yeskey, 97634

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtSCALIA
Citation118 S.Ct. 1952,524 U.S. 206,141 L.Ed.2d 215
PartiesPENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Petitioners, v. Ronald R. YESKEY
Docket Number97634
Decision Date15 June 1998

524 U.S. 206
118 S.Ct. 1952
141 L.Ed.2d 215

PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Petitioners,

v.

Ronald R. YESKEY.

No. 97-634.
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued April 28, 1998.
Decided June 15, 1998.
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, 111 S.Ct. 2395, 115 L.Ed.2d 410, 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. ____-____.

118 F.3d 168, affirmed.

SCALIA, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.

Paul A. Tufano, Harrisburg, PA, for petitioner.

Donald Specter, Washington, DC, for respondent.

Irving L. Gornstein, Washington, DC, for U.S. as amicus curiae, by special leave of Court.

Justice SCALIA delivered the opinion of the Court.

The question before us is whether Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), 104 Stat. 337, 42 U.S.C. §12131 et seq., which prohibits a "public entity'' from discriminating against a "qualified individual with a disability'' on account of that individual's disability, see §12132, covers inmates in state prisons. Respondent Ronald Yeskey was such an inmate, sentenced in May 1994 to serve 18 to 36 months in a Pennsylvania correctional facility. The sentencing court recommended that he be placed in Pennsylvania's Motivational Boot Camp for first-time offenders, the successful completion of which would have led to his release on parole in just six months. See Pa. Stat. Ann., Tit. 61, §1121 et seq. (Purdon Supp.1998). Because of his medical history of hypertension, however, he was refused admission. He filed this suit against petitioners, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's Department of Corrections and several department officials, alleging that his exclusion from the Boot Camp violated the ADA. The District Court dismissed for failure to state a claim, Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 12(b)(6), holding the ADA inapplicable to inmates in state prisons; the Third Circuit reversed, 118 F.3d 168 (1997); we granted certiorari, 522 U.S.----, 118 S.Ct. 876, 139 L.Ed.2d 865 (1998).

Petitioners argue that state prisoners are not covered by the ADA for the same reason we held in Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452, 111 S.Ct. 2395, 115 L.Ed.2d 410 (1991), that state judges were not covered by the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. §621 et seq. Gregory relied on the canon of construction that absent an "unmistakably clear'' expression of intent to "alter the usual constitutional balance between the States and the Federal Government,'' we will interpret a statute to preserve rather than destroy the States' "substantial sovereign powers.'' 501 U.S., at 460-461, 111 S.Ct., at 2400-2401 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). It may well be that exercising ultimate control over the management of state prisons, like establishing the qualifications of state government officials, is a traditional and essential State function subject to the plain-statement rule of Gregory. "One of the primary functions of government,'' we have said, "is the preservation of societal order through enforcement of the criminal law, and the maintenance of penal institutions is an essential part of that task.'' Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396, 412, 94 S.Ct. 1800, 1811, 40 L.Ed.2d 224 (1974), overruled on other grounds, Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 414, 109 S.Ct. 1874, 1882, 104 L.Ed.2d 459 (1989). "It is difficult to imagine an activity in which a State has a stronger interest,'' Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 491, 93 S.Ct. 1827, 1837, 36 L.Ed.2d 439 (1973).

Assuming, without deciding, that the plain-statement rule does govern application of the ADA to the administration of state prisons, we think the requirement of the rule is amply met: the statute's language unmistakeably...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1742 practice notes
  • Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule
    • United States
    • Federal Register June 03, 2010
    • June 3, 2010
    ...intentional effort to confer the flexibility necessary to forestall such obsolescence. See Pennsylvania Dept. of Corrections v. Yeskey, 524 U. S. 206, (1998) (``[T]he fact that a statute can be applied in situations not expressly anticipated by Congress does not demonstrate ambiguity. It de......
  • Justice Department, Antitrust Division,
    • United States
    • Federal Register March 18, 2002
    • March 18, 2002
    ...States, 118 F.3d 776 (D.C. Cir. 1997) Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore, 439 U.S. 322 (1979) Pennsylvania Department of Corrections v. Yeskey, 524 U.S. 206 (1998) Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. 367 (1992) Sorenson v. Secretary of Treasury, 475 U.S. 851, 860 (1986) South Dakota......
  • Part III
    • United States
    • Federal Register June 17, 2008
    • June 17, 2008
    ...accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities.'' The Supreme Court, in Pennsylvania Department of Corrections v. Yeskey, 524 U.S. 206 (1998), unanimously held that the ADA unmistakably covers state prisons and prisoners, so program access does apply to state correctional facilit......
  • Trujillo v. Rio Arriba Cnty. ex rel. Rio Arriba Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't, No. CIV 15-0901 JB/WPL
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. District of New Mexico
    • December 19, 2016
    ...entities are subject to Title II[.]" City & Cnty. of San Francisco v. Sheehan, 135 S. Ct. at 1773 (citing Pa. Dep't of Corrs. v. Yeskey, 524 U.S. 206, 208 (1998)). Title II "does not provide for individual capacity suits against state officials." Braverman v. New Mexico, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEX......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1738 cases
  • Trujillo v. Rio Arriba Cnty. ex rel. Rio Arriba Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't, No. CIV 15-0901 JB/WPL
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. District of New Mexico
    • December 19, 2016
    ...entities are subject to Title II[.]" City & Cnty. of San Francisco v. Sheehan, 135 S. Ct. at 1773 (citing Pa. Dep't of Corrs. v. Yeskey, 524 U.S. 206, 208 (1998)). Title II "does not provide for individual capacity suits against state officials." Braverman v. New Mexico, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEX......
  • U.S. v. Reid, No. CR.A. 02-10013-WGY.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 1st Circuit. United States District Courts. 1st Circuit. District of Massachusetts
    • June 11, 2002
    ...meaning of the text. . . . [I]t is of use only when it sheds light on some ambiguous word or phrase." Penn. Dep't of Corr. v. Yeskey, 524 U.S. 206, 212, 118 S.Ct. 1952, 141 L.Ed.2d 215 (1998) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); accord Carter v. United States, 530 U.S. 255, 267,......
  • Meeks v. Schofield, Case No. 3:12–cv–545.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Court of Middle District of Tennessee
    • March 31, 2014
    ...The Supreme Court has recognized that Title II of the ADA applies to prisoners housed in state prisons. Pa. Dep't of Corr. v. Yeskey, 524 U.S. 206, 213, 118 S.Ct. 1952, 141 L.Ed.2d 215 (1998).To prove a violation of Title II, the plaintiff must show: “[1] that he is a ‘qualified individual ......
  • Campbell v. Thomas, CASE NO. 2:10-CV-694-WC [WO]
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. Middle District of Alabama
    • September 25, 2013
    ...in state correctional facilities. United States v. Georgia, 546 U.S. 151, 154 (2006) (citing Pennsylvania Dep't of Corr. v. Yeskey, 524 U.S. 206, 210 (1998)); Bircoll v. Miami-Dade County, 480 F.3d 1072, 1081 (11th Cir. 2007) (It is well settled law "that a disabled prisoner can state a Tit......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
7 books & journal articles
  • HELL AND HIGH WATER: HOW CLIMATE CHANGE CAN HARM PRISON RESIDENTS AND JAIL RESIDENTS, AND WHY COVID-19 CONDITIONS LITIGATION SUGGESTS MOST FEDERAL COURTS WILL WAIT-AND-SEE WHEN ASKED TO INTERVENE.
    • United States
    • Fordham Urban Law Journal Vol. 49 Nbr. 2, February 2022
    • February 1, 2022
    ...Barden v. City of Sacramento, 292 F.3d 1073, 1076 (9th Cir. 2002); Yeskey v. Pa. Dep't of Corr., 118 F.3d 168, 171 (3d Cir. 1997), aff'd, 524 U.S. 206 (1998). Department of Justice regulations provide that "Title II applies to anything a public entity does." Seremeth v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs......
  • Prisoners' Rights and the Rehnquist Court Era
    • United States
    • Prison Journal, The Nbr. 87-4, December 2007
    • December 1, 2007
    ...v. Estate of Shabazz, 482 U.S. 342 (1987).Overton v. Bazzetta, 539 U.S. 126 (2003).Pennsylvania Department of Corrections v. Yeskey, 524 U.S. 206 (1998).Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516 (2002).Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337 (1981).Richardson v. McKnight, 521 U.S. 399 (1997).Robinson v. Calif......
  • Supreme Court Outcomes in Criminal Justice Cases (1994-2012 Terms)
    • United States
    • Criminal Justice Policy Review Nbr. 26-8, December 2015
    • December 1, 2015
    ...v. King, 186 L. Ed. 2d 1 (2013).McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010).Pennsylvania Department of Corrections v. Yeskey, 524 U.S. 206 (1998).Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005).Sossamon v. Texas, 179 L. Ed. 2d 700 (2011).Stafford Unified School District v. Redding, 557 U.S. 364......
  • CLEARTEXTUALISM AND SEXUALISM.
    • United States
    • Washington University Global Studies Law Review Vol. 21 Nbr. 3, September 2022
    • September 22, 2022
    ...(36) Id. at 1748. (37) Id. at 1747-49. (38) Id. at 1740. (39) Id. at 1738-41. (40) See id at 1751 (citing Penn. Dep't of Corr. v. Yeskey, 524 U.S. 206 (1998) (holding the Americans with Disabilities Act applies to state (41) See also id. at 1749 (citing ANTONIN SCALIA & BRYAN A. GARNER,......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT