National Association of the Deaf v. State of Florida, 945 F.3d 1339

Background

Plaintiff Eddie Sierra (deaf) and the National Association of the Deaf sued Florida, the Florida Senate and House (and their presiding officers), and FSU/WFSU under Title II of the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act for failing to provide closed captions on live and archived videos of legislative proceedings.
The Legislature and FSU stream and archive proceedings; Plaintiffs requested captioning in 2017 but received no response and no captions.
Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief and money damages for alleged denial of meaningful participation in the democratic process.
Defendants moved to dismiss mainly on Eleventh Amendment sovereign-immunity grounds; Legislative Defendants also argued they receive no federal funds and thus cannot be sued under the Rehabilitation Act.
The district court denied dismissal: it held Congress validly abrogated sovereign immunity under Title II, the Pennhurst exception did not bar Ex parte Young relief against officials, and it refused to dismiss the Rehabilitation Act claim without jurisdictional discovery.
The state defendants appealed interlocutorily; the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court in full (with a partial concurrence/dissent on the Rehabilitation Act reasoning).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Congress validly abrogated states' Eleventh Amendment immunity for Title II claims (Section 5 enforcement)	Title II abrogates immunity and is a congruent/proportional remedy to remedy exclusion of disabled persons from public services, including access to legislative information and participation in the democratic process	Congress lacked power to abrogate here; any asserted right is not fundamental and thus abrogation is invalid	Abrogation is valid: court applies Eleventh Circuit three-step test and holds Title II is a congruent/proportional remedy whether the implicated right is fundamental or not (affirmed)
Whether plaintiffs may obtain prospective injunctive/declaratory relief against state officials under Ex parte Young given Pennhurst	Plaintiffs may seek injunctive relief for ongoing federal-law violations (ADA) by state officials	Defendants argued Pennhurst bars Ex parte Young relief where plaintiffs effectively seek enforcement of state law or intrude on state sovereignty	Ex parte Young applies because Plaintiffs sue to enjoin alleged federal ADA violations; Pennhurst exception does not bar federal-law-based injunctive relief (affirmed)
Whether Legislative Defendants waived sovereign immunity under the Rehabilitation Act by receiving federal financial assistance	Plaintiffs allege direct or indirect federal assistance; discovery is needed to test Legislative Defendants’ declaration denying federal funds	Legislative Defendants submitted a declaration saying they have received no federal funds since 1999 and sought dismissal	District court did not abuse discretion in refusing to dismiss on the record presented and ordering discovery/answer; Eleventh Circuit affirms refusal to dismiss, noting overlap with ADA claims; one judge would remand for fuller explanation
Whether the interlocutory appeal was properly before the court	Plaintiffs: denial of sovereign immunity is immediately appealable because immunity is an entitlement not to face litigation burdens	Defendants challenged appellate jurisdiction	Eleventh Circuit has jurisdiction under collateral-order doctrine and precedent (Mitchell); interlocutory appeal valid (affirmed)

Key Cases Cited

Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509 (2004) (Title II enforcement and scrutiny when fundamental rights implicated)
Kimel v. Florida Bd. of Regents, 528 U.S. 62 (2000) (requirement that Congress unequivocally express intent to abrogate sovereign immunity)
City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997) (congruence-and-proportionality test for Section 5 legislation)
Bd. of Trs. of Univ. of Ala. v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356 (2001) (limits on Congress's abrogation of immunity under Section 5)
Ass’n for Disabled Ams., Inc. v. Fla. Int’l Univ., 405 F.3d 954 (11th Cir. 2005) (Eleventh Circuit three-step framework for Title II abrogation analysis)
Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908) (prospective injunctive relief against state officials for federal-law violations)
Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 (1984) (limits on Ex parte Young where suit seeks enforcement of state law)
United States v. Georgia, 546 U.S. 151 (2006) (Title II as-applied claims that independently violate the Fourteenth Amendment)
Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (1985) (immediate appealability of certain immunity denials)