TENNESSEE V. LANE (02-1667) 541 U.S. 509 (2004)
315 F.3d 680, affirmed.
Syllabus
Opinion
[ Stevens ]		Concurrence
[ Souter ]		Concurrence
[ Ginsburg ]		Dissent
[ Rehnquist ]		Dissent
[ Scalia ]		Dissent
[ Thomas ]
HTML version
PDF version		HTML version
PDF version		HTML version
PDF version		HTML version
PDF version		HTML version
PDF version		HTML version
PDF version		HTML version
PDF version

541 U.S. ____ (2004)

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

No. 02—1667

TENNESSEE, PETITIONER v. GEORGE LANE et al.

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

[May 17, 2004]

Justice Thomas, dissenting.

I join the Chief Justice’s dissent. I agree that Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 cannot be a congruent and proportional remedy to the States’ alleged practice of denying disabled persons access to the courts. Not only did Congress fail to identify any evidence of such a practice when it enacted the ADA, ante, at 6, 10, Title II regulates far more than the provision of access to the courts, ante, at 15—16. Because I joined the dissent in Nevada Dept. of Human Resources v. Hibbs, 538 U.S. 721 (2003), and continue to believe that Hibbs was wrongly decided, I write separately only to disavow any reliance on Hibbs in reaching this conclusion.