IT Accessibility Review
Volume 1, Number 7
IT Accessibility Legal Briefs
Lobbyists Prepare for Battle
From: ADAWatch.org
WASHINGTON - The last time Ralph G. Neas and C. Boyden Gray went head to head as commanding generals in a war over a Supreme Court confirmation was in 1991, when Clarence Thomas was the nominee. Now, with the resignation of Justice Sandra Day O´Connor, they are adversaries again.
Gray, who was White House counsel for the elder President George Bush, won the Thomas battle, but by all accounts, Neas had the superior operation: a unified battalion of labor unions, civil rights groups, women´s organizations, civil libertarians and environmentalists that had more money, more energy and packed more firepower than had ever been used in a Supreme Court fight. It was an expansion of the same force Neas had mobilized successfully in 1987 to defeat the nomination of Robert H. Bork.
After the bruising Thomas conflict, Gray, surprised by the fervor of the opposition, vowed he would never be outgunned again.
"When I was counsel, there was nothing out there," he said in a recent interview at his law office. "We didn´t have the infrastructure with Bork or Thomas," he said. "The other side existed, but this side did not."
This year, said Gray, Chairman of the Committee for Justice, which he formed three years ago to work for the president´s judicial nominees, he was mustering outside forces that would be up to the fight. "There is a lot of coverage now," he said.
There is no doubt about the strength of Gray´s side now. Progress for America, a group with close ties to the current Bush administration, has begun to spend a pledged $18 million on advertising and organizing for the confirmation battle.
Christian conservatives, who are far better organized and sophisticated than they were when the elder Bush named Thomas to the court, are springing into action, and Gray, like his opponent, expects to have amassed far greater reserves of cash and armies of activists this time around.
Some familiar faces are assisting Gray, who talks regularly with the White House about judicial nominees, in the confirmation campaign. The growing clout of Christian conservatives has given him new allies.
He works closely with Jay Sekulow, General Counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice, a Christian conservative legal group founded by the televangelist Pat Robertson, and Leonard Leo, a top official of the conservative Federalist Society who doubles as director of Republican Ooutreach to Catholics.
By contrast, Neas, now president of People for the American Way, is presiding over a liberal coalition that has stayed largely intact over the last 10 years, still led by the same handful of veterans.
After learning of the O´Connor resignation, Neas joined Nan Aron, President of the Alliance for Justice, and representatives from three dozen groups -- including the AFL-CIO, the American Association of University Women, and the National Coalition for Disability Rights -- at a Capitol news conference to call for a "consensus nominee."
Neas´ challenge is to keep those groups organized and to compile the evidence needed to block an objectionable nomination, but of the two generals, he is less likely to face dissension in his ranks. His coalition has worked with the Democratic leadership in the Senate all year on appellate court nominees, and Neas himself is so closely tied to the Democrats in Congress that Sen. Edward M. Kennedy once called him "the 101st senator."
The conservatives, by contrast, are looser-knit and have a more contentious relationship with Republicans in the Senate. Gray´s task is to hold them together, despite their divergent interests.
Progress for America, for instance, can be counted on to support President Bush´s choice. "Our focus as an organization all along has been to defend the president´s nominee, no matter who that person is, from attacks from liberal interest groups," said Jessica Boulanger, a spokeswoman for the organization. However, the Christian conservatives say they will back only a nominee with a clear record of subscribing to their views on abortion, gay marriage, and the role of religion in public life.
"We´re not an extension of the White House," said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, which is a conservative Christian advocacy group.
Meanwhile, business groups, which have largely sat out the fights about the president´s appeals court nominees, will make no commitment until Bush´s choice for the Supreme Court is known.
As in their previous confirmation battles, both sides will rely on advertising blitzes, barrages of mail, phone calls, and media campaigns to deliver their messages, but this time, they will have to compete to shape public opinion in the faster, more intense world of 24-hour news shows, gossipy Web sites and online political blogs.
For Neas, the Supreme Court is the ultimate guardian of fundamental rights, ranging from civil rights to abortion rights.
For Gray, the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the Constitution´s enduring meaning, with no business usurping decisions better left to voters.
The two have not always been antagonists.
In 1989, when Gray was White House counsel, the two men worked together on the Americans With Disabilities Act, but on the heels of that, they squared off as rivals once more on civil rights legislation.
"I have always respected him, and I hope that is mutual, though I don´t know," Gray said.
Neas said he respected Gray´s intellect and drive but said his view of him had diminished recently during a confirmation fight about an appellate court judge.
As part of its strategy to defend Judge Priscilla R. Owen, the Committee for Justice ran an advertisement picturing Neas, along with Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton, Tom Daschle, and Patrick J. Leahy, on Old West-style wanted posters, calling them "a new gang" gunning for the conservative Bush nominee.
"It crossed the line," said Neas. "The whole thing was beyond the pale."
Source:
New York Times News Service
July 3, 2005
Court Expands Scope of Disabilities Law
Washington-- The Supreme Court, expanding the scope of a landmark federal disabilities law, ruled that foreign cruise lines sailing in U.S. waters must provide better access for passengers in wheelchairs.
The narrow 5-4 decision is a victory for disabled rights advocates, who said inadequate ship facilities inhibited their right to "participate fully in society."
"With this decision the Supreme Court has told the cruise lines that we are entitled to what every other passenger receives -- access to emergency equipment and the full range of public facilities," said Douglas Spector of Houston, one of the disabled passengers suing the cruise lines.
A spokeswoman for the International Council of Cruise Lines, based in Arlington, Va. , said the group was reviewing the decision and had no immediate comment.
Congress intended the 1990 American with Disabilities Act to apply to cruise lines, the 5-4 majority said.
"The statute is applicable to foreign ships in the United States waters to the same extent that it is applicable to American ships in those waters," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority; he was joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen G. Breyer.
Still, the ruling is unclear how much the $2.5 billion foreign cruise industry, which carries 7.1 million passengers each year, will actually have to reconfigure pools, restaurants and emergency equipment for wheelchair accessibility, an upgrade that could cost the industry millions.
That is because Kennedy also writes that cruise lines need not comply with Title III of the ADA to the extent it creates too much international discord or disruption of a ship´s internal affairs, under a provision of the statute that calls only for "readily achievable" modifications.
"It is likely that under a proper interpretation of ´readily achievable´ Title III would impose no requirements that interfere with the internal affairs of foreign-flag cruise ships," Kennedy wrote, in sending the case back to lower court to determine what is ultimately required of cruise lines.
Three disabled passengers, who boarded Norwegian Cruise Line in Houston in 1998 and 1999, say they paid premiums for handicapped-accessible cabins and the assistance of crew but the cruise line failed to configure restaurants, elevators and other facilities in violation of the ADA.
Norwegian Cruise Line countered that only an explicit statement of Congress can justify imposing the U.S. law on a ship that sails under a foreign flag, even if it is docked at a U.S. port. The federal law is silent as to whether foreign cruise lines are covered by the ADA.
In a dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia argued that extending the federal law to foreign ships will create international discord and is wrong, because Congress does not explicitly call for it. The ruling should leave no opening for ships to be required to change their amenities to fit the laws of each country they visit, he said.
Much of the industry registers its ships away from home countries in places such as the Bahamas, Liberia, Honduras, Panama and Cyprus, which promote the practice by pointing to their business-friendly regulatory outlooks. The U.S. cruise industry is almost exclusively foreign-flagged.
"Title III plainly affects the internal order of foreign-flag cruise ships, subjecting them to the possibility of conflicting international obligations," Scalia wrote in an opinion joined by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist as well as Justices Sandra Day O´Connor and Clarence Thomas.
The ruling has wide implications for the cruise industry, which fears the remodeling will cost it millions. The Bush administration and several State Attorney Generals backed the disabled passengers while the International Council of Cruise Lines supported Norwegian Cruise Line.
The case was an appeal from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals based in New Orleans , which ruled in January that foreign-flag cruise ships are not covered by the ADA . Under the Supreme Court´s decision, the disabled passengers who filed suit may now proceed to trial to prove they were discriminated against.
Both the cruise lines and disability groups then urged the Supreme Court to take the case, noting a conflict with an 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in 2000 that foreign ships must comply with the law.
After the 11th Circuit decision, several cruise lines settled lawsuits claiming ADA violations, while some voluntarily agreed to make their facilities more wheelchair-accessible.
The case is Spector v. Norwegian Cruise Line, 03-1388. The ruling in Spector v. Norwegian Cruise Line Ltd. is available at:
http://wid.ap.org/documents/scotus/050606norwegian.pdf
Source:
The Associated Press © 2005
June 6, 2005
