United States v. Georgia

546 U.S. 151 (2006)

Quick Summary

Tony Goodman (plaintiff), a paraplegic prisoner, sued the State of Georgia (defendant) under ADA Title II for not accommodating his disability within prison. Goodman claimed severe mistreatment and denial of access to prison programs due to his disability.

The Supreme Court faced the issue of whether ADA Title II can override state sovereign immunity to allow disabled inmates to sue states for monetary damages. The Court concluded that ADA Title II does indeed abrogate state sovereign immunity in cases where the state conduct violates constitutional rights.

Facts of the Case

Tony Goodman (plaintiff), a paraplegic inmate in the Georgia state prison system, brought a lawsuit against the State of Georgia (defendant) under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), asserting that his disability-related needs were not being accommodated within the prison. Goodman claimed that he was denied assistance for basic life functions, reasonable accommodations for his disability, and access to prison programs.

His confinement conditions included being housed in a cell too small to maneuver his wheelchair, being denied help with hygiene, experiencing injuries from attempting to transfer to the toilet and shower on his own, and at times, being left in his own waste due to lack of assistance from prison officials.

Goodman sought both injunctive relief and monetary damages but faced challenges as Georgia moved for summary judgment on the basis that Title II of the ADA infringed upon its sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment. The district court agreed with Georgia and dismissed the case, a decision which was affirmed by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. This led to an appeal by Goodman and the United States government to the Supreme Court for a final resolution on the matter.

Procedural Posture and History

  1. Goodman filed a pro se complaint against the State of Georgia and other defendants in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia.
  2. The District Court dismissed Goodman’s § 1983 claims without amendment opportunity and later granted summary judgment to state defendants on ADA Title II claims, citing sovereign immunity.
  3. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of ADA Title II claims based on sovereign immunity but reversed the dismissal of certain § 1983 claims, allowing Goodman to amend his complaint regarding Eighth Amendment violations.
  4. Goodman and the United States government appealed to the United States Supreme Court on the ADA Title II sovereign immunity issue.

I.R.A.C. Format


Whether Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act validly abrogates state sovereign immunity, allowing a disabled inmate to sue a state for monetary damages.

Rule of Law

Title II authorizes private citizens to sue public entities for discrimination based on disability, and in enacting ADA, Congress intended to abrogate state sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment for violations of this chapter.

Reasoning and Analysis

The Supreme Court considered whether Goodman’s Title II claims were based on conduct that also constituted actual violations of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court assumed that the Eleventh Circuit’s findings—that Goodman had alleged actual violations of the Eighth Amendment—were correct.

It was determined plausible that Georgia’s failure to accommodate Goodman’s disability needs in key areas like mobility and hygiene could be seen as discrimination under Title II of the ADA. The Court reasoned that if Goodman’s mistreatment constituted exclusion from participation in prison services or activities, then his claims fell within Title II’s purview.

As such conduct also infringed upon the Fourteenth Amendment, Title II would validly abrogate state sovereign immunity for these claims. The Eleventh Circuit’s decision was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings to clarify which aspects of Goodman’s claims were based on unconstitutional conduct and whether Congress’s abrogation of immunity for other types of conduct under Title II is valid.


The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Eleventh Circuit, holding that Title II of the ADA validly abrogates state sovereign immunity when it creates a private cause of action for damages against states for conduct that violates the Constitution. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

Concurring Opinions

Justice Stevens, joined by Justice Ginsburg, concurred with the majority opinion, emphasizing that while Goodman’s Eighth Amendment claims were sufficient for reversal, other constitutional rights relevant to prisoners should be considered when determining Title II’s scope in abrogating sovereign immunity.

Key Takeaways

  1. Title II of the ADA allows disabled individuals to sue states for discrimination and is applicable within state prisons.
  2. Congress intended to abrogate state sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment through ADA Title II for discrimination based on disability.
  3. The Supreme Court held that when state conduct violates constitutional rights, ADA Title II validly abrogates state sovereign immunity.

Relevant FAQs of this case

What legal mechanisms are available to individuals with disabilities seeking to enforce their rights under the ADA?

Individuals with disabilities can enforce their rights under the ADA through various legal mechanisms, including filing complaints with federal agencies, pursuing mediation, or initiating lawsuits in federal court. The ADA also allows for injunctive relief, monetary damages, and reasonable attorney’s fees.

  • For example: A person in a wheelchair facing inaccessible public transportation could file a complaint with the Department of Justice or sue the transit authority for injunctive relief and damages.

How does sovereign immunity impact the ability of private citizens to sue a state or state entities?

Sovereign immunity generally protects states from being sued in federal court without their consent. However, Congress can abrogate state sovereign immunity through legislation when it enacts laws pursuant to its enforcement powers under the Fourteenth Amendment.

  • For example: If a state university denies a qualified student with a disability reasonable accommodation, that student cannot sue the state for damages unless a law like the ADA explicitly abrogates sovereign immunity.

In what circumstances can Congress abrogate a state's Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity?

Congress can abrogate a state’s Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity when it acts within its constitutional authority, particularly under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, and it unequivocally expresses its intent to do so in the statute’s text.

  • For example: Congress passed the Voting Rights Act explicitly stating its intent to abrogate state sovereign immunity to prevent racial discrimination in voting, an action grounded in enforcing the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments.


Last updated

Was this case brief helpful?

More Case Briefs in Constitutional Law