868 F.3d 589
7th Cir.2017Background
- Marion County subsidizes mediation in domestic-relations cases through a county Plan that pays mediator fees but not interpreter costs.
- Dustin King, a deaf litigant in Marion Circuit Court, requested both court-referred mediation with subsidy and a free American Sign Language interpreter for mediation; the court denied subsidized interpreter services and rescinded mandatory mediation, offering an in-court hearing with a free interpreter instead.
- King proceeded with mediation using a family member as an interpreter, resolved his dispute, and then sued the Circuit Court under Title II of the ADA in federal court claiming denial of benefits of a public program due to lack of a free interpreter.
- The district court awarded King damages; Indiana (via the Marion Circuit Court) asserted sovereign immunity on appeal, invoking Will and related doctrines that treat suits against state courts as suits against the state.
- The Seventh Circuit reversed, holding that Title II does not validly abrogate Indiana’s sovereign immunity in this context because King’s claim does not implicate the fundamental right of access to courts under Tennessee v. Lane and abrogation under §5 of the Fourteenth Amendment is not warranted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Title II abrogates state sovereign immunity for damages here | King: denial of a free interpreter in subsidized mediation denied him benefits of a public program under Title II | Marion Ct/Indiana: suit is against the State, so sovereign immunity bars damages absent valid §5 abrogation | Abrogation fails; sovereign immunity bars the federal suit |
| Whether limited subsidy (mediator but not interpreter) denies access to courts | King: subsidy limits can functionally block access to judicial process | Marion Ct: court offered full adjudication with free in‑court interpreter; mediation was discretionary | No access-to-courts violation; offer of adjudication preserved access |
| Whether Tennessee v. Lane’s access-to-courts rationale applies | King: Title II should apply because ADA protects access to adjudicatory process | King lacks evidence showing systemic or likely future denial of court access via mediation practice | Lane does not cover isolated or speculative disabilities-related mediation barriers here |
| Whether damages remedy would serve a prophylactic §5 purpose | U.S./King: damages deter/guard against future constitutional violations | Marion Ct: no pattern of unconstitutional conduct; isolated incident cannot justify abrogation | Damages would not plausibly prevent future violations; §5 prophylactic power not shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (states and arms of the state are not suable under § 1983 and suits against state officials in their official capacity are suits against the state)
- Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44 (states retain sovereign immunity against suits in federal court absent consent or valid abrogation)
- Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509 (Title II validly abrogated sovereign immunity for cases implicating fundamental right of access to courts)
- Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U.S. 445 (Congress may abrogate state sovereign immunity under §5 of the Fourteenth Amendment)
- Kimel v. Fla. Bd. of Regents, 528 U.S. 62 (limits on Congress’s §5 power; discrimination remedies may not rest on other constitutional grants)
- Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (§5 enforcement power cannot effect substantive change in constitutional protections)
- Bd. of Trs. of Univ. of Ala. v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356 (Title I abrogation invalid where evidence of state discrimination was insufficient)
- United States v. Georgia, 546 U.S. 151 (Title II may permit damages remedies against states for conduct violating the Fourteenth Amendment)
- Kras v. United States, 409 U.S. 434 (no constitutional right to waive filing fees or obtain appointed counsel in civil cases)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (test for due process protections in administrative adjudications)
- Marchant v. Pennsylvania R.R., 153 U.S. 380 (historical recognition of judicial hearings as due process)
- Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706 (states retain sovereign immunity from private suits in their own courts unless they consent)
- Holmes v. Marion Cnty. Office of Family & Children, 349 F.3d 914 (7th Cir.) (discussing prophylactic congressional responses to concealable constitutional violations)