Close up of the U.S. Supreme Court, focused on the pillars, and doorway.

The Arc Reviews Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s Record on Issues Impacting People With Disabilities: What Is at Stake

/in , /by Pam Katz

By Shira Wakschlag, Senior Director, Legal Advocacy & General Counsel

On September 26, President Donald Trump announced his nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals for a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court following the passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Judge Barrett’s confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee began today. The Arc is not taking a position on Judge Barrett’s nomination. As the confirmation process for this lifetime appointment unfolds, here we provide an overview of Judge Barrett’s disability and civil rights record to ensure our members and constituents in the disability community are fully informed about issues that impact people with disabilities.  

Judge Barrett was nominated by President Trump to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals on May 8, 2017 and confirmed by the Senate on October 31, 2017. Prior to her appointment to the Seventh Circuit, she was a professor at Notre Dame Law School and a judicial clerk for Justice Antonin Scalia on the U.S. Supreme Court. Given her relatively short time on the bench, this overview includes sources such as law review articles and public speeches, in addition to key opinions from her judicial record. 

Health Care

Background: The Arc has long fought for the rights of people with disabilities to have timely access to high quality, comprehensive, accessible, affordable health care that meets their individual needs, maximizes health, well-being and function, increases independence and community participation, and is aligned with principles of non-discrimination and equity. Through its public policy and legal advocacy work, The Arc has vigorously advocated for the Affordable Care Act (ACA) as essential for people with disabilities in providing affordable and necessary health care, Medicaid expansion, and protections for pre-existing conditions and against discrimination. The ACA also protects against lifetime coverage limits, guarantees coverage of services for mental health and developmental disabilities, and provides access to long-term home-based health care, allowing people with disabilities to live in the community, rather than institutions. The COVID-19 pandemic has only exacerbated healthcare disparities and underscored the critical importance of the ACA given the millions of newly unemployed Americans who would not otherwise be able to afford health insurance, the increase in disabilities and long-term healthcare needs resulting from COVID-19, and the possibility of discriminatory medical rationing prohibited by the ACA.

Judge Barret’s Record: Though Judge Barrett has not ruled in a case involving the ACA, she has been a vocal opponent of the law in a number of public forums. In a Notre Dame law review article discussing various approaches to judicial interpretation of statutes, Judge Barrett criticized the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2012 NFIB v. Sebelius decision upholding the ACA, writing that Chief Justice John Roberts had “pushed the Affordable Care Act beyond its plausible meaning to save the statute. He construed the penalty imposed on those without health insurance as a tax…had he treated the payment as the statute did—as a penalty—he would have had to invalidate the statute as lying beyond Congress’s commerce power.”

In 2015, in King v. Burwell,the U.S. Supreme Court again upheld the ACA, with Chief Justice Roberts writing the majority opinion and noting: “Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them.” Justice Scalia dissented based on his interpretation of the law to prohibit subsidies in states with federal exchanges. Judge Barrett supported Justice Scalia’s interpretation in an interview on public radio. On November 10, the Court will hear oral arguments for California v. Texas, a case in which the constitutionality of the ACA has been challenged, threatening the law’s overall validity. Given Judge Barrett’s previous remarks on ACA-related cases and the shifting makeup of the court, the future of the ACA is under great threat, putting the health care of millions with disabilities in jeopardy.

Federal Disability and Civil Rights Laws

Background: The history of living with a disability in the U.S. has largely been one of discrimination, segregation, and exclusion from education, work, housing, and routine daily activities. Over its 70 year history, The Arc has been instrumental in the enactment of federal disability civil rights laws—including the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act—which have helped society make great strides in protecting the civil rights of people with disabilities. The Arc has fought vigorously against a variety of attempts to narrow the scope of these protections. A robust interpretation and enforcement of federal disability and other civil rights laws is critical to ensuring the right of people with disabilities to live, work, learn, and play in the community, free from discrimination.

Judge Barrett’s Record: In 2019, Judge Barrett joined a decision out of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals upholding the state of Wisconsin’s open-enrollment program allowing public school students to apply to transfer from their resident school district to a nonresident district with available space. Plaintiffs—parents of students with disabilities who were denied transfers based on their special education needs—challenged the program as discriminatory.  The program allows districts to distinguish between “regular education and special education spaces” and nonresident districts can deny a student’s transfer application if the district lacks the services or space necessary to meet their disability-related needs.

The court found for the state, holding that: “Differential treatment of special-needs students doesn’t make the program unlawful. Federal law ‘forbids discrimination based on stereotypes about a handicap, but it does not forbid decisions based on the actual attributes of the handicap.’ The program makes decisions based on the actual needs of disabled students, so it complies with federal law.” The ADA was enacted to provide a “clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities.” The court’s interpretation that the law is narrowly limited to protecting against “stereotypes” rather than discrimination based on the actual needs of people with disabilities is deeply concerning and inconsistent with the purpose of the statute.

More broadly, outside of the disability realm, Judge Barrett has consistently interpreted civil rights laws extremely narrowly to the detriment of marginalized groups, including people of color, older adults, and the LGBTQ+ community.[1]

Discrimination in Immigration Policy

Background: In 2018, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security announced the “public charge” rule which allows the federal government to deny admission into the U.S. based on the likelihood of an individual relying on public benefits for support. Through public policy and in the courts, The Arc has fought this rule because it discriminates against people with disabilities by allowing the government to deny admission into the U.S. based solely on a person’s disability and the use or expected use of public benefits like Medicaid. It also discourages immigrant families from utilizing critical public services—such as Medicaid, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, housing assistance, and other important programs—out of fear of harming their immigration status. Overall, the rule unfairly restructures immigration in a way that is detrimental to people based on their disability.

Judge Barrett’s Record: Earlier this year, in Cook County v. Wolf, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a preliminary injunction of the “public charge” rule, holding that it discriminates against people with disabilities by making it more difficult for immigrants with significant disabilities to come to the U.S. because of their increased likelihood of relying on government benefits for support: “The conclusion is inescapable that the Rule penalizes disabled persons in contravention of the Rehabilitation Act.” Judge Barrett dissented, writing that she would vacate the injunction based on her understanding that “DHS’s definition is a reasonable interpretation of the statutory term ‘public charge.’”[2]

[1] See, e.g. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. AutoZone (7th Cir. 2017) (denying petition for en banc rehearing of a case in which the lower court ruled for the employer where the EEOC claimed that AutoZone had an unlawful practice of segregating employees by race when it assigned Black employees to stores in Black neighborhoods, which the dissent criticized as an unlawful “separate-but-equal arrangement”); Kleber v. CareFusion Corporation (7th Cir. 2019) (joined majority opinion holding that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act protects only current employees from discrimination due to disparate impact, not outside job applicants. One dissenting judge criticized the opinion, noting: “Wearing blinders that prevent sensible interpretation of ambiguous statutory language, the majority adopts the improbable view that the Act outlawed employment practices with disparate impacts on older workers, but excluded from that protection everyone not already working for the employer in question.”); Amy Coney Barrett, Hesburgh Lecture, Jacksonville University Public Policy Institute, 2016, available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7yjTEdZ81lI (criticizing Obergefell v. Hodges (U.S. 2015)—Supreme Court decision establishing a constitutional protection for marriage equality for same sex couples—and noting that Title IX should not be interpreted to extend its protections to transgender people.). Judge Barrett also provided paid speeches in 2015 and 2016 to the Alliance Defending Freedom, an organization designated as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

[2] For more information on Judge Barrett’s disability record, see The Bazelon Center, “Amy Coney Barrett’s Record on Issues Affecting People with Disabilities”

The Arc logo

The Arc on Passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Her Mark on the Disability Rights Movement

/in , , /by Pam Katz

The Arc released the following statement on the passing of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg:

“Often lost in the day to day of life are the big moments in history that make today possible. Today, a life in the community for millions of people with disabilities is possible because of the actions of those who came before them, that led to justice. We mourn the loss of one of those champions, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who wrote the opinion in the landmark ruling affirming that unjustified segregation of people with disabilities is discrimination.

“Thirty years ago, the Americans with Disabilities Act transformed the country in important ways, changing expectations for the lives of people with disabilities. Thanks to the work of countless committed advocates, we have taken meaningful steps toward the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities. Two advocates that carried the promise of the law all the way to the Supreme Court were Lois Curtis and Elaine Wilson. Their bravery and refusal to live behind the dark walls of institutions led to the landmark U.S. Supreme Court Olmstead v. L.C. decision in 1999. The case established that unjustified segregation of people with disabilities is discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act – and that people with disabilities have a right to live in the community rather than institutions.

“In the opinion, Justice Ginsburg focused on the fact that ‘institutional placement of persons who can handle and benefit from community settings perpetuates unwarranted assumptions that persons so isolated are incapable of or unworthy of participating in community life.’

“This big moment, and her staunch affirmation of the human dignity of people with disabilities and their rightful place in the community of their choice, fundamentally changed the course of the lives of hundreds of thousands of people with disabilities. With this history in our hearts, we will carry on our fight for inclusion and justice for all people with disabilities,” said Peter Berns, CEO, The Arc.

Black and white photograph of justice scales sitting on a desk in a courtroom

The Arc Calls for Georgia Supreme Court to Reexamine Unconstitutional Standard for Proving Intellectual Disability in Death Penalty Cases

/in , , /by The Arc

WASHINGTON – The Arc of the United States, The Arc Georgia, and The Georgia Advocacy Office filed an amicus brief Monday before the Georgia Supreme Court in the case Palmer v. Georgia. The brief explains that Georgia’s requirement that defendants facing the death penalty must prove their diagnosis of intellectual disability “beyond a reasonable doubt” to be exempt from execution creates an unacceptable risk that people with intellectual disability will be executed. Georgia’s burden of proof undermines clinical science and encourages jurors to rely on stereotypes. While the Georgia Supreme Court has previously declined to find Georgia’s standard unconstitutional, more recent decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court necessitate a different outcome in this case.

“For decades, The Arc has advocated for capital defendants with intellectual disability leading to critical Supreme Court precedent prohibiting their execution. Mr. Palmer and other people with intellectual disability on Georgia’s death row must be afforded their constitutional rights and not be subjected to harmful stereotypes,” said Peter Berns, CEO, The Arc. “Georgia’s ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ burden of proof for establishing intellectual disability in death penalty cases is inconsistent with the clinical process of diagnosing intellectual disability and the risks are deadly.”

“Because of The Arc’s advocacy, Georgia was the first state to prohibit the execution of people with intellectual disability by statute even before the U.S. Supreme Court banned this practice,” said Stacey Ramirez, State Director, The Arc Georgia. “However, Top of Formdespite Georgia’s early leadership on the issue, it is the only state that requires defendants to establish intellectual disability beyond a reasonable doubt and, since Atkins, not a single defendant in Georgia has been held to be exempt from execution due to intellectual disability. Georgia’s untenable standard violates the Constitution and puts people with intellectual disability at grave risk.”

In Atkins v. Virginia (2002), the U.S. Supreme Court recognized the special risk of wrongful execution faced by persons with intellectual disability and banned their execution as cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment. Since the Georgia Supreme Court last reviewed its death penalty statute in 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court mandated that states cannot ignore clinical science or impose procedures that create an “unacceptable level of risk” that people with ID will be executed. In Hall v. Florida (2014), the Court rejected an arbitrary cutoff for IQ scores in making the intellectual disability determination and emphasized the importance of courts consulting clinical standards in their analysis. The Court’s decisions in Moore v. Texas (2017, 2019) strengthened this precedent by emphasizing the need to rely on well-established clinical standards—rather than stereotypes—in making intellectual disability determinations in death penalty cases. The Arc filed amicus briefs in Atkins, Hall, and Moore to educate the court on the clinical diagnosis of intellectual disability and ensure that the important precedent set in Atkins continues to be strengthened and upheld in jurisdictions around the country.

 

The Arc logo

Supreme Court Ruling Hurts Students With Disabilities

/in , /by The Arc

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The Arc is deeply disappointed in this week’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue. The Court’s decision opens the door for public funds to go to religious private schools that are largely unbound by federal laws in place to protect the rights of students with disabilities.

“We have fought for decades to ensure that students with intellectual and developmental disabilities have access to special education and related services to meet their unique needs. This decision by the Supreme Court will allow for funding for additional private schools across the country that have few, if any, obligations to accept or appropriately support students with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Unless required by state law, private schools that accept vouchers are not subject to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act nor the Americans with Disabilities Act. Families who choose to use vouchers may not even realize that they are forfeiting their rights when they move to a private school,” said Peter Berns, CEO, The Arc. 

Because of the potential negative impact on students with disabilities, The Arc of the United States and a coalition of advocacy and legal services organizations filed an amicus brief in the case in November 2019 asking the Court to uphold the decision made by the Montana Supreme Court invalidating the state’s private school tax-credit scholarship program.

“School voucher and tax credit programs like Montana’s put students with disabilities at risk of segregation in school and receiving inadequate services and supports. These disparities in education can have life-long negative impacts and we simply can’t afford to go backwards. We must focus on increasing funding for public schools and improving education for students with disabilities, rather than forcing families to choose between underfunded public schools and private schools that legally don’t have to serve students with disabilities,” said Berns.

The Arc advocates for and serves people wit­­h intellectual and developmental disabilities (I/DD), including Down syndrome, autism, Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders, cerebral palsy and other diagnoses. The Arc has a network of over 600 chapters across the country promoting and protecting the human rights of people with I/DD and actively supporting their full inclusion and participation in the community throughout their lifetimes and without regard to diagnosis.

Editor’s Note: The Arc is not an acronym; always refer to us as The Arc, not The ARC and never ARC. The Arc should be considered as a title or a phrase.