Such is the case with Tennessee v Lane, a case in the Supreme Court that focused on the legality of Congress to enact laws such as the Americans with Disabilities Act under section V of the Fourteenth Amendment. The High Court ultimately found that Congress does have the power to enact a law which may run contrary to an individual state's sovereign immunity in cases that implicate access to the courts (Tennessee v Lane, 2004). The suite was brought by plaintiffs who were disabled, lived in Tenessee, and claimed that they were unable to access the upper flowers of the state courthouses, thus denying them a public service under Title II of the ADA. The state of Tennessee argued that the 11th Amendment prohibited the suite. Congress, said Tennessee, could use its powers to remedy discrimuination that was blatant and purposeful, but not in general because of a state's sovereign immunity from being sued based on a previous case, Board of Trustees University of Alabama v Garnett. In this case the Court found that Title I of the ADA was unconstitutional because it allowed states to be sued by private citizens for monetary damages:

States are not required by the Fourteenth Amendment to make special accommodations for the disabled, so long as their actions towards such individuals are rational. They could quite hardheadedly -- and perhaps hardheartedly -- hold to job-qualification requirements which do not make allowance for the disabled. If special accommodations for the disabled are to be required, they have to come from positive law and not through the Equal Protection Clause (Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v Garrett, 2001).

The essential issues for both cases are two: intent to sue and authority of the state. The ADA does not require anyone to make accommodations that are unreasonable or would indicate a financial hardship, but...

In Alabama v Garrett the issue was broader, but in Tennessee v Lane, the Court, in a 5-4 opinion, ruled that Congress did, in fact, have enough evidence that the disabled were being denied fundamental rights protected under the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment -- the right to have access to courts. Additionally, the remedy set down by Congress was reasonable and prudent because of the manner in which the ADA phrases "reasonable accommodations."
The importance of Lane is both that reasonable accommodations are required, and easily mitigated -- in this case, all Tennessee had to do was revamp its elevator system to allow disabled persons access; they did not need to rebuild the Courthouse or change any structure. Additionally, the ADA law itself came under scrutiny and the Court said that Congress did have evidence that there was discrimination occurring, and that states were not immune to this law -- as long as the reasonableness of the situation deemed it appropriate. Scholars also view Lane as important because it allowed the Court to use an "as applied" feature; taking a function or issue (in this case the Tennessee Court House) and using it as a test to "apply" the law in a broader sense, thus preventing a state from claiming that it could not be sued for violating a Congressional act. This, in fact, put states on the same level as private organizations in regard to the ADA (Bradley, 2006, xix).

REFERENCES

Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v Garrett, 531 U.S. 356 (U.S. Supreme 2001).

Tennessee v Lane, 541 U.S. 509 (U.S. Supremem Court 2004).

Bradley, C. (Ed.). (2006). The Rehnquist Legacy. New York: Cambridge University Press.