President George Bush signed the Americans With Disabilities Act on July 26, 1990. That was a Thursday. In all probability, the first ADA lawsuit was filed the following Monday. The ensuing tidal wave of litigation finally is crashing upon the sands of the Supreme Court.
Next month, the high court will hear argument in four cases arising under the disabilities act. On April 21, the justices will take up the needs of mental patients in Georgia. On April 27, a mechanic with high blood pressure will have his day in court. On April 28, counsel will argue two cases involving disabling eyesight.When the dust settles, we should have the Supreme Court's guidance on two disputed elements of the 1990 law. That will leave only 498 to go. A host of lawyers will hang out their shingles, feed on the ADA in the courtrooms of America and pass the final bar before the ocean of disability litigation dries up.
Tommy Olmstead, commissioner of human resources in Georgia, is appealing an opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. He became the defendant in a suit brought by two patients at the Georgia Regional Hospital in Atlanta. Known at law only as L.C. and E.W., they represent a large class of mental patients who need treatment but not necessarily treatment in a mental institution. Their charge is that by failing to provide them with outpatient treatment, Georgia has discriminated against them.
The suit raises old questions of federalism. Care for the mentally ill has been a state function since our republic began. At one time, every state had its institutions of treatment and confinement. These were known as lunatic asylums or even more cruelly as "loony bins." Some of them must have been competently run, but many others were dreadful.
Not many remain. A brief filed by state and local officials notes that in 1970, roughly 368,000 persons were in public institutions for the mentally ill. That figure has dropped to less than 73,000. The states closed 37 mental hospitals in the 1990s. The trend is toward treatment through community health services, but community placement is hardly cost-efficient, and the states' resources are finite.
The 11th Circuit held in the Georgia case that the Americans With Disabilities Act imposes a duty upon the state "to provide treatment in a community setting -- the most integrated setting appropriate to that patient's needs." It is puzzling. How did the specific treatment of state mental patients get to be the business of Congress? Is this truly what the act requires?
The three other cases are different and complex. All in all, the high court has a full plate. We will know more by the end of term in June.
Universal Press Syndicate