[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Page 2228]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA V. GARRETT SUPREME COURT 
                                  CASE

  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, during the Congressional recess last 
week, the Supreme Court issued an extremely important decision 
regarding the Americans with Disabilities Act and the principles of 
federalism. The decision, Board of Trustees of the University of 
Alabama v. Garrett, is one in a series of cases that is helping 
reassert the role of the States in our Federal system of Government.
  The eleventh amendment to the Constitution prohibits States from 
being sued in Federal court by private citizens for money damages, 
unless the State consents. In the Garrett case, the Supreme Court said 
that based on this provision it is unconstitutional for the Congress to 
hold the States liable for private lawsuits under the ADA. The Congress 
did not or could not create a record of a pattern of discrimination by 
the States sufficient to meet the heavy burden required by the 
Constitution.
  While the case referred to Title I of the ADA, which concerns 
employment discrimination, the reasoning of the Court should apply 
equally to all of the ADA and well beyond the ADA.
  I would like to note just one example. In 1998, the Supreme Court 
held that the language of the ADA was clear enough to cover state and 
local prisons. I immediately introduced legislation to exclude State 
and local prisons from the ADA because I do not believe that the 
Congress considered the ADA applying to these institutions when it 
passed the legislation. After all, the housing of prisoners is a core 
State function, with about 94 percent of prisoners being maintained in 
State and local facilities.
  I have reintroduced the legislation, S. 34, in this Congress. 
However, this Supreme Court decision should be very beneficial in 
limiting the application of the ADA in the prison context on the State 
level even without the Congress amending the ADA. This is just an 
example of how this case will help keep the Federal Government out of 
areas that traditionally have been reserved to the States.
  Far too often, the Congress ignores the principles of federalism and 
acts as though the States are subdivisions of the Federal Government. 
Decisions such as Garrett remind the Congress that this is simply not 
the case. The Constitution created a Federal Government of limited, 
enumerated powers, and those powers that the Constitution does not 
provide for the Federal Government are reserved to the States and to 
the people.
  The Congress must do more to recognize the separation of powers 
between the Federal Government and the States. I am pleased that the 
Supreme Court is showing a renewed respect for the principles of 
federalism.

                          ____________________