E.D.Va.: Immunity under Rehabilitation Act rejected (again)

A Virginia federal district court rejected the state’s sovereign immunity defense in a prisoner’s Rehabilitation Act lawsuit. Miller v. Johnson, 2008 WL 821652 (E.D. Va. Mar. 27, 2008) (No. 07-438).

           The court held that the defendants’ arguments relied on a misinterpretation of Supreme Court precedent and were barred by Fourth Circuit precedent.

 

            Miller claimed that prison officials failed to accommodate his physical limitations related to Guillain-Barre syndrome. The defendants argued, based on passages in College Savings Bank v. Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Educ. Expense Bd., 527 U.S. 666 (1999), that the Rehabilitation Act forced the state to waive its immunity in violation of the Eleventh Amendment. The district court criticized the defendants for relying selectively on isolated parts of that decision that did not have to do with waiver under the Spending Clause. In Florida Prepaid, the court rejected an argument for an “implied” or “constructive” waiver where a state advertised a program that would subject the state to claims under federal law; the Spending Clause was not implicated.

 

            The defendants also attempted to distinguish Constantine v. Rectors and Visitors of George Mason Univ., 411 F.3d 474 (4th Cir.2005), on the basis that that decision recognized a Spending Clause waiver “only in situations in which Congress may unilaterally abrogate the States' immunity.” The court stated that this view was inconsistent with other Fourth Circuit case law and also with the law of every other circuit. The threshold immunity questions presented under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the court stressed, “have no application” under the Rehabilitation Act.