Justice Scalia said that at least to the extent that the inmate's claims indicated that prison officials had violated not only the statute but the Constitution itself, the suit could proceed. The inmate, Tony Goodman, says that prison officials have grossly neglected his needs for mobility and personal hygiene, and that his dependence on a wheelchair has left him excluded from the law library and recreational opportunities.That sounds accurate. Does Congress have the power to abrogate state sovereign immunity for things other than constitutional violations, as it has tried to do with the Americans With Disabilities Act? That's is a tough question involving the analysis of whether the statute should count as remedies for constitutional violations (as opposed to mere statutory rights). The Supreme Court has been terribly divided over this area of complex doctrine, and it makes sense to put off dealing with it until the new Justice is confirmed.
The decision left very significant questions unanswered, most notably the fate of a disability lawsuit that demonstrates violations of the statute but not of any constitutional provision....
Without doubt, the unanimity and brevity of Justice Scalia's opinion, at only eight pages, papered over deep divisions that have been apparent on the court during years of contention over the boundaries between federal authority and state prerogatives....
Mr. Schaerr suggested that the imminent departure of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who has been at the center of the federalism debates, might have prompted the court to decide the new case promptly, and therefore narrowly, and to defer the hard questions.
(Note: I disapprove of the overheated term "federalism revolution." The Supreme Court has shown only a modest interest, in the last 20 years, in providing some judicial enforcement of federalism.)
पोस्ट्स
कोणत्याही टिप्पण्या नाहीत:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा