W A T C H  T H I S !

Sutton      ADA Notification       States     Federalism Watch the Sutton Nomination to the Federal Judiciary (STOP SUTTON!) Ohio Attorney Jeffrey S. Sutton is known for his work towards weakening the Americans with Disabilities Act and other civil rights laws in several recent Supreme Court cases.  Through the coordination of ADA Watch, disability rights organizations across the United States are joining together to oppose the U.S. Senate confirmation of Sutton who has been nominated by President Bush to become a federal court judge in the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals. List of Organizations United in Opposition to the Confirmation of Sutton (new) Sign the Petition Against Sutton Sutton Fact Sheet What If Sutton Got His Way? Ohio Group’s Fight Sutton   Jeffrey Sutton Biography & Quotes Use this Template to Create a “Stop Sutton” Op-ed to Your Local Paper (new) More Media Strategy for Stopping Sutton (new) ADA Watch works closely in coalition with civil rights, social justice, environment, women's, and other communities to advocate for a fair and independent judiciary. See www.independentjudiciary.com  List of Organizations United in Opposition to the Confirmation of Sutton As of January 6, 2003, 75 National/International Organizations and 299 Local, State and Regional Organizations from 48 States, Territories and the District of Columbia have united in opposition to Sutton!  Add your name or the name of your organization to this petition against Sutton. NATIONAL/INTERNATIONAL AAPD Ability Unleashed Access Now Accessible Living, Inc. ADAPT ADA Watch The Alliance for Rehabilitation Counseling (NRCA/ARCA) The American Council of the Blind American Society for Deaf Children The Associated Blind, Inc. Association for Persons in Supported Employment The Association of Programs in Rural Independent Living (APRIL) Autism National Committee Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law CE Disabled Services The Center for Medicare Advocacy Corporation Chemical Sensitivity Disorders Association Citizens For Legitimate Government The Council for Disability Rights Consumer Action Network (CAN) for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing Deaf Queer Resource Center Disability Issues Caucus of the Young Democrats of America Disability Rights Coalition for Housing (DRACH) Disability Rights Center Disabled Action Committee disAbledpersons.com DREDF The Equalizers Families4Change Family Voices Feminist Majority Gazette International Networking Institute Global Organization of Feminists with Disabilities (GO FWD) Heumann and Associates Housing Works, Inc. iCan! Inc. Institute for Disability Access, Inc. Irene M. Ward and Associates Justice for All The Legal Aid Society - Employment Law Center Myositis Support Group National Association of Protection and Advocacy Systems (NAPAS) National Association on Alcohol, Drugs & Disability The National Association of the Deaf National Center for Environmental Health Strategies The National Coalition on Self-Determination The National Council on Independent Living (NCIL) The National Disabled Student Union The National Lawyers Guild The National Organization for Women National Parent Network on Disabilities National Rehabilitation Association The National Spinal Cord Injury Association National Women's Political Caucus National Senior Citizens Law Center Not Dead Yet The Nth Degree Older Women's League (OWL) Pathcommand People Who The Polio Society Protect All Children's Environment Progressive Majority Rammler and Wood, Consultants, LLC Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf SEIU Self Help for Hard of Hearing People Support Coalition International TASH USA Deaf Wrestling Association USA Deaf Soccer Association Welfare Law Center World Association of Persons with disAbilities [WAPD] World Institute on Disability World Wide Disabilities On-Line LOCAL, STATE AND REGIONAL ALABAMA Birmingham Independent Living Center Center for Independent Living ALASKA Access Alaska, Inc. Southeast Alaska Independent Living, Inc. Alaska State Independent Living Council ARIZONA New Horizons Independent Living Center ARKANSAS Arkansas Independent Living Council Arkansas People First Delta Resource Center for Independent Living Spa Area Independent Living Services CALIFORNIA Access Center of San Diego Berkeley City Council California Democratic Party State Disability Caucus California Democrats with Disabilities Club California Disability Alliance Californians for Disability Rights California Foundation for Independent Living Centers Center for Independence of the Disabled Central Coast Center for Independent Living Dayle McIntosh Center Disability Resources Agency for Independent Living Disability Rights Enforcement, Education, Services (DREES) Disabled Students Union of UC Berkeley Helping You Help Others The Heart of San Francisco Independent Living Services of Northern California, Inc. Northern California ADAPT Orange County Deaf Advocacy Center PLACER Independent Resources Services, Inc. Resource Center for Independent Living Southern California Rehabilitation Services Westside Center of Independent Living COLORADO Center for Independence Center for People with Disabilities Colorado Democrats with disAbilities Colorado Developmental Disabilities Planning Council Colorado Springs Independence Center Connections for Independent Living WAPD of Colorado CONNECTICUT Americans with Disabilities Act Coalition of Connecticut, Inc. Arc/CT Center for Disability Rights Connecticut Association of Centers for Independent Living Connecticut Olmstead Coalition Office for Persons with Disabilities, City of Bridgeport NAMI DELAWARE Delaware ADAPT Independent Resources, Inc. State Council for Persons with Disabilities DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Capital Area ADAPT - Greater Washington DC The Spinal Cord Injury Network of the Metropolitan Washington Area University Legal Services FLORIDA Access Now Caring and Sharing Center for Independent Living, Inc. Center for Independent Living of Central Florida Center for Independent Living of Florida Keys Center for Independent Living of South Florida Florida Coalition for Disability Rights Florida Spinal Cord Injury Resource Center Hackett Solutions Independent Living Resources of NE Florida Just Access Quality Cadre, Inc. Self Reliance, Inc. WAPD of Florida GEORGIA Abilities-In-Action BAIN Center for Independent Living disABILITY LINK Gregory Center Statewide Independent Living Council of GA, Inc. The Advocacy Project for Persons with Disabilities HAWAII Disability Rights Hawaii Hawaii Centers for Independent Living Single Mothers of Disabled Coalition IDAHO Case Management Association of Idaho Disability Action Center - Northwest, Inc. Idaho Statewide Independent Living Council LIFE, Inc Living Independence Network Corporation National Multiple Sclerosis Society, Idaho Division Nez Perce Vocational Rehabilitation Services ILLINOIS Access Living Coalition of Citizens with Disabilities in Illinois Family T.I.E.S. Network Gaining Access to Independent Living Galena Parent Advocates Horizon Hospice Chicago Illinois Network of Independent Living Centers Illinois Valley Center for Independent Living IMPACT Jacksonville Area Center for Independent Living Lake County Center for Independent Living Life Center for Independent Living LINK, Inc. National Alliance of the Mentally Ill National Women's Political Caucus of Greater Chicago Northwestern Illinois Center for Independent Living PACE, Inc. Progress CIL RAMP CIL Riverbend Down Syndrome Parent Support Group Statewide Independent Living Council of Illinois West Central Illinois Center for Independent Living Will Grundy Center for Independent Living INDIANA Accessibility 2000 ATTIC, Inc. Everybody Counts Center for Independent Living SICIL Southern Indiana Center for Independent Living IOWA Iowa Family Support Initiatives Iowa Statewide Independent Living Council Three Rivers Center for Independent Living KANSAS Coalition For Independence, Inc. Independence, Inc. Independent Living Resource Center Kansas ADAPT Kansas Associations of Centers for Independent Living Kansas Commission on Disability Concerns Kansas Disability Rights Action Coalition for Housing Kansas TASH LINK, Inc. Prairie Independent Living Resource Center Southeast Kansas Independent Living and Resource Center Statewide Independent Living Council of Kansas Topeka Independent Living Resource Center (TILRC) KENTUCKY ADA Action Network of Kentucky ADA Action Network Advisory Council of Kentucky BEST Center for Independent Living Center for Accessible Living Charles McDowell Center Derby City Area Chapter of the National Spinal Cord Injury Association Enabling Technologies of Kentuckians KATS Network Kentucky Statewide Independent Living Council LOUISIANA Children's Advocacy Network for Conscientious Education (CHANCE) Louisiana Citizens for Action Now Southwest Louisiana Independence Center WAPD of Louisiana MARYLAND Access Systems Coalition for Choice and Compassion in Mental Health The Freedom Center Independence Now Making Choices for Independent Living Maryland Association of Psychiatric Support Services Maryland Disability Forum Maryland Disability Law Center Maryland Statewide Independent Living Council On Our Own of Maryland Public Justice Center Spinal Cord Injury Network MASSACHUSETTS ALEF Boston Center for Independent Living Center for Public Representation Disability Law Center The Greater Boston Chapter of the National Spinal Cord Injury Association Independent Living Center of the North Shore and Cape Ann, Inc. Massachusetts Association for the Chemically Injured Massachusetts Voters with Disabilities Massachusetts Democrats with Disabilities Metrowest Center for Independent Living Stavros Center for Independent Living MICHIGAN The Arc of Michigan Michigan Association of Centers for Independent Living Superior Alliance for Independent Living MINNESOTA Freedom Resource Center for Independent Living Metropolitan Center for Independent Living Minnesota Association of Centers for Independent Living Restart Inc. MISSISSIPPI Coalition for Citizens with Disabilities MISSOURI The Ark of Friends of Greater Kansas City Living Independently for Everybody MERIL Missouri Council of the Blind Missouri Statewide Independent Living Council NAMI of Columbia Missouri Paraquad SADI Missouri Southwestern Independent Living Center, Inc. The Whole Person, Inc. Warrensburg Independent Living Services MONTANA ADAPT Montana Alliance for Disability and Students of the University of Montana Coalition of Montanans Concerned with Disabilities North Central Independent Living Services, Inc. NEBRASKA League of Human Dignity NEW JERSEY Disabled Advocates Working for Northwest (DAWN) Heightened Independence and Progress Progressive Center for Independent Living Total Living Center NEW HAMPSHIRE Granite State Independent Living Foundation LifeArt Community Resource Center NEW MEXICO The Coalition for Living Independently in the Community (CLIC) Independent Living Resource Center New Mexico Statewide Independent Living Council New Vistas Independent Living Center San Juan Center for Independence StarReach Enterprises NEW YORK 504 Democratic Club of New York City Access to Independence of Cortland County, Inc. Americans Demanding Access Committee of New York Brooklyn Center for Independence of the Disabled, Inc. Bronx Independent Living Services Disabled in Action of Metropolitan New York FUTURE Views, Inc. Greystone Programs, Inc. Hands Across Long Island, Inc. Housing Works, Inc. Independent Living Center of the Hudson Valley Mental Patients Liberation Alliance New York City AIDS Housing Center New York State Institute on Disability, Inc. New York State Independent Living Council Northern Regional Center for Independent Living, Inc. Queens Independent Living Center Regional Center for Independent Living Resource Center for Accessible Living, Inc. Resource Center for Independent Living The Self-Advocates of Central New York Unique Peerspectives Peer Support Center Westchester Independent Living Center Westchester Disabled on the Move, Inc. Workers Against Mismanagement NORTH CAROLINA Concerned Citizens with Disabilities Coalition North Carolina Deaf-Blind Associates North Carolina Statewide Independent Living Council Pathways For The Future Programs for Accessible Living Western Alliance Center for Independent Living NORTH DAKOTA Dakota Center for Independent Living OHIO Ability Center of Defiance The Ability Center of Greater Toledo Access Center for Independent Living AXIS Center for Public Awareness of People with Disabilities Center for Independent Living Options, Inc. The Disability Coalition Movement of Cleveland The Independent Living Center Of North Central Ohio, Inc. Irene M. Ward & Associates, Ohio Lorain County Coalition of Citizens with Disabilities, Inc. MOBILE Independent Living Center Ohio Chapter of WAPD Ohio Coalition for the Education of Children with Disabilities The Ohio Women with Disabilities Network Ohio Statewide Independent Living Council People First of Ohio Resource Linkage Association OKLAHOMA Progressive Independence WAPD of Oklahoma OREGON Mental Health Association of Oregon Oregon Disabilities Commission Oregon Statewide Independent Living Council PENNSYLVANIA Abilities in Motion Center for Independent Living Opportunities Lawrence County Committee on Disability Liberty Resources Inc. Lehigh Valley Center for Independent Living Mental Health Association of Pennsylvania Mental Health Association of Southeastern Pennsylvania Northeastern Pennsylvania Center for Independent Living Pennsylvania Statewide Independent Living Council Pennsylvania Council on Independent Living Tri-County Patriots for Independent Living Visions for Equality, Inc. Voices for Independence SOUTH CAROLINA Coastal Disability Access South Carolina Spinal Cord Injury Association TENNESSEE The Arc of Tennessee Tennessee Disability Coalition TEXAS ABLE Center for Independent Living ARCIL, Inc. Center on Independent Living Coalition of Texan with Disabilities Crockett Resource Center for Independent Living Houston Center for Independent Living Panhandle Independent Living Center REACH Resource Centers on Independent Living Setlife Center for Independent Living Texas Advocates Supporting Kids with Disabilities Texas Mental Health Consumers VOLAR Center for Independent Living WAPD of Texas UTAH The Association for Independent Living of Utah Central Utah Center for Independent Living OPTIONS for Independence Utah Statewide Independent Living Council VERMONT Green Mountain Self-Advocates Vermont Center for Independent Living Vermont Coalition for Disability Rights VIRGINIA The Blue Ridge Independent Living Center The Endependence Center of Northern Virginia Hope and Clay Associates Northern Virginia Mental Health Consumers Association WASHINGTON Northwest Chapter Paralyzed Veterans of America The Washington Coalition of Citizens with disAbilities WEST VIRGINIA Mountain State Centers for Independent Living Northern West Virginia Center for Independent Living West Virginia Statewide Independent Living Council West Virginia State Rehabilitation Council WISCONSIN Access to Independence Center for Independent Living for Western Wisconsin, Inc. Great Rivers Independent Living Center IndependenceFirst Midstate Independent Living Consultants North Country Independent Living Options for Independent Living Southeast Wisconsin ADAPT Wisconsin Coalition of Independent Living Centers Wisconsin Statewide Independent Living Council NEW ENGLAND WAPD of New England PUERTO RICO Movemento para el Alcance de Vida Independiente Puerto Rico Puerto Rico SILC Back to Top Sign the Petition Against Sutton Put your organization on the growing coalition list of national, state and local groups opposing Sutton's confirmation.  Sign the Petition Against Sutton. Back to Top Sutton Fact Sheet Jeffrey Sutton: Taking Aim at the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Developed by: Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law The confirmation of Jeffrey S. Sutton to the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit would undermine the core protections and services afforded by Congress to persons with disabilities. Jeffrey Sutton has a record of advocacy hostile to the interests of the disability community. He has not simply taken an unpopular position in the name of zealously representing a client. Instead, he has aggressively pursued a national role as the leading advocate for a group of far-right legal theorists attempting to limit Congress's power to protect individuals' civil rights. He has acknowledged that he is "on the lookout" for cases where he can present this view, and he has devoted his career to advancing the cause of federalism. Sutton argued that the protections of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) were "not needed" to remedy discrimination by states against people with disabilities. He also argued that Medicaid rights are unenforceable by individual recipients. Sutton's arguments can, and no doubt will, be extended to claim that rights under the Rehabilitation Act and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) are unenforceable as well. Instead of Congress extending protections through federal civil rights laws, Sutton believes that states should be the "principal bulwark in protecting civil liberties" - a statement that has grave implications given the massive record of state-sanctioned discrimination against individuals with disabilities. Yet, still, Sutton claims that he is not attacking disability rights, but instead merely advancing a theory of limited government. That claim is disingenuous. Jeffrey Sutton believes Congress's powers are so limited that Congress acted improperly in enacting many of the core protections for people with disabilities. He has attempted to dismantle these protections one by one in the federal courts. The arguments that Sutton has advanced would make a mockery of many of the critical rights for which individuals with disabilities have fought so hard. Jeffrey Sutton's advocacy record reveals a pattern of efforts to override Congress's intent and to thwart the spirit and purpose of the ADA and other civil rights laws. And it is this record that best makes the case as to why he should not be confirmed.   JEFFREY SUTTON HAS ATTACKED CRITICAL LAWS PROTECTING PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES   Attacks on the ADA Jeffrey Sutton actively sought involvement in a case that severely limits the rights of persons with disabilities. Sutton argued before the Supreme Court in Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett that Congress had no power to authorize individuals with disabilities to file lawsuits for damages against states for violating the Americans with Disabilities Act. Sutton argued that Congress had no power to apply the ADA to the states because "[in passing the ADA, Congress did not identify any pattern or practice of unconstitutional State action, or for that matter, even a single instance of such conduct." Despite the massive record of egregious conduct toward individuals with disabilities by states that Congress had compiled -- including instances of forced sterilization of individuals with disabilities, unnecessary institutionalization, denial of education, and systemic prejudices and stereotyping perpetrated by state actors -- Sutton argued that states were actually in the forefront of efforts to protect the rights of individuals with disabilities. Sutton persuaded the Supreme Court's conservative majority to rule, in a 5-4 decision, that individuals with disabilities who are state employees cannot sue their employers for damages under Title I of the ADA. Garrett not only prevents persons with disabilities from collecting monetary damages from state employers. Significantly, the decision has resulted in fewer attorneys being willing to represent individuals in an ADA cases against state employers. While Jeffrey Sutton has tried to characterize his argument in the Garrett case as limited to ADA claims for money damages, the implications are much broader. Despite Sutton's assurances to the Supreme Court that he "doubt[ed] anyone would ever bring . . . an across-the-board attack on the law," states have been raising such challenges across the country and some courts have ruled that even ADA claims that do not involve money damages cannot be brought against state actors. Jeffrey Sutton also filed a brief representing the state of Georgia before the Supreme Court in Olmstead v. L.C. Sutton argued in Olmstead that states had no duty under the ADA to serve individuals with disabilities in integrated settings. Sutton argued that unnecessarily keeping people with disabilities in institutions was not a form of discrimination. Fortunately, the Supreme Court did not accept his arguments in that case. Attacks on Medicaid, Section 504, and IDEA Jeffrey Sutton has also launched a direct attack on the ability of Medicaid recipients to enforce their rights under the law, and has indirectly attacked the ability of individuals with disabilities to enforce their rights under the Rehabilitation Act and the IDEA. Jeffrey Sutton argued to the Supreme Court in Alexander v. Sandoval and to a Michigan federal court in Westside Mothers v. Haveman that Congress cannot use its power under the Spending Clause to authorize individuals to sue the states to enforce their rights. Sutton argued that the Medicaid law and other Spending Clause laws, such as the Rehabilitation Act and the IDEA, are not supreme federal law, but instead are merely contracts between the federal government and the states. This is counter to over sixty-five years of Spending Clause jurisprudence. The Michigan court adopted Sutton's arguments and held that Medicaid beneficiaries cannot sue to enforce their rights. As a result, impoverished children and adults who are not getting basic medical care guaranteed them under the Medicaid program have been unable to enforce their rights. The court stated that the only way their Medicaid rights may be enforced is by the federal government withholding Medicaid funds to the states -- which would result in Medicaid recipients not getting needed services. States have begun citing the Westside Mothers decision in cases across the country in an effort to persuade other courts to rule that people with disabilities have no right to enforce their rights under Medicaid or Section 504. The implications of Sutton's argument do not stop at Medicaid beneficiaries. Indeed, Sutton's argument extends to all legislation enacted on the basis of the Spending Clause. If Sutton's arguments were to be adopted by other courts, they would bring an end to private enforcement of IDEA and the Rehabilitation Act as well as Medicaid. Finally, Sutton argued to the Supreme Court in Alexander v. Sandoval that individuals cannot privately enforce regulations under Title VI, a race discrimination statute, that prohibit states and others receiving federal funds from doing things that have the effect of discriminating based on race or national origin. In a 5-4 decision, the Court accepted Sutton's position. Since then, states have begun to use the Sandoval decision in efforts to persuade courts that people with disabilities should not be allowed to enforce regulations under Section 504 and Title II of the ADA requiring reasonable accommodations and integration of individuals with disabilities. Jeffrey Sutton represents a grave threat to the rights of individuals with disabilities. People with disabilities fought hard to secure the much needed protections afforded by the ADA, Section 504, the IDEA, and Medicaid. We do not want to see those protections systematically stripped away as a result of the appointment of Jeffrey Sutton to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. Updated July 1, 2001 Back to Top . What If Jeffrey Sutton Got His Way? The Eradication of Protections for Persons with Disabilities Developed by The Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law Jeffrey Sutton has devoted his career to advancing a theory of federalism that will disempower persons with disabilities and has "been on the lookout" for cases that advance this view. Jeffrey Sutton claims that he is merely acting as any good lawyer would -- zealously representing the interests of his clients. However, he has done much more than that. Sutton is a far-right ideologue who has actively sought participation in numerous cases in which he has attempted to limit Congress's power to protect civil rights, including rights under the ADA and Medicaid. It is no coincidence that Sutton has been the chief lawyer in case after case arguing that individuals have no right to enforce the civil rights protections that Congress has given them. He has engaged in a calculated effort to take away the civil rights guaranteed to persons with disabilities and others. What would happen if Jeffrey Sutton got his way? Individuals with disabilities would be segregated in institutions despite professional opinion that they would be better served in the community. Impoverished children and adults denied the basic medical care guaranteed to them under the Medicaid program would be unable to enforce their rights. State governments would be free to exclude people with disabilities from their programs and services, including health care, education, roads and streets, public buildings, and welfare benefits, without fear of having to compensate those individuals for the discrimination they suffered. Sutton has already ensured that state employees with disabilities can no longer seek compensation from their state employers for violating ADA. Back to Top Ohio Groups Fight Sutton Groups Fight Anti-ADA Jeffrey Sutton Nomination to Federal Bench Prepared by the National Council on Independent Living National and local disability groups are opposing the nomination and have contacted Bush and notified media. Sutton argued against the Americans with Disabilities Act before the U. S. Supreme Court this past fall on the Garrett case. (For more on the Garrett decision, go to http://www.accessiblesociety.org/topics/ada/garrettoverview.htm) Disability advocates in Washington DC on Sat., May 20 marched to the White House to express opposition. The rally was spearheaded by ADA Watch (for more information email ADA Watch) To view the Columbus story click here Sutton is from Columbus. He was a 1992 law clerk for conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, Sutton told the Court last fall when he argued the Garrett case for Alabama that the ADA "exaggerated discrimination problems by states." The ADA was "not needed," he told the Court, since all 50 states had disability anti-discrimination laws already. Besides the Garrett case, Sutton, a state solicitor for Ohio, successfully argued in support of states' rights in the Kimel case, in which the U. S. Supreme Court ruled, in Dec., 1999, that the Age Discrimination Act was unconstitutional. Many of the same arguments used in Kimel were used by Sutton to argue against the ADA's constitutionality in the Garrett case. Sutton has been nominated for the federal judgeship of the 6th Circuit Court, which reviews appeals from the federal district courts in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee. Contact the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee and tell them to NOT TO CONFIRM Jeffrey Sutton. Back to Top Jeffrey Sutton Biography & Quotes Compiled by the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law Background Information 1    Clerked for Justice Scalia, 1992. nbsp;   Active member of the Federalist Society. Served on the Federalism and Separation of Powers Group.(1) 3.    "Jeff's a Court-watcher. He knows what's coming up," says Dan Schweitzer Supreme Court counsel for the National Association of Attorneys General, who applauds Sutton's work. "He's taken a very active role . . ."(2) (Goes to Sutton seeking out disability cases?) 4.    "Sutton says he and his staff are always on the lookout for cases coming before the Court that raise issues of federalism or will affect local and state government interests."(3) Disability Quotes 1. QUESTION: Mr. Sutton, there were congressional findings that there has been discrimination against the disabled in voting, health services, transportation, education, and so on, and there are numerous examples in the legislative record, and those are areas of traditional state control. Do you think that those findings are somehow false, or not relevant in some way, or that the discrimination is just not unconstitutional, or what? MR. SUTTON: Your Honor, they're exceedingly relevant, and they certainly sustain the ADA as a matter of Commerce Clause legislation, but just as with Kimel and the age laws they refer only to discrimination in general. They don't establish constitutional violations.(4) 2. QUESTION: But you're willing to concede, apparently, that it is a constitutional violation not to make special provision in public buildings for those who are handicapped. MR. SUTTON: Well – QUESTION: That is a denial of the equal protection of the laws. MR. SUTTON: I'm not willing to concede that, Your Honor, . . . (5) 3. MR. SUTTON: The second problem with the ADA is, it's unlike any section 5 law to my knowledge ever enacted, and certainly ever upheld by the Court, in the sense that it truly is a constitutional amendment in section 5 clothing. It applies not just to every state, but every form of Government service that ever existed or ever will exist.(6) 4. MR. SUTTON: You've got, in fact, a greater gap [than that found in Kimel] between a statutory standard and a constitutional standard, and an equally anemic record when it comes to constitutional violations.(7) 5. Sutton notes that all 50 states have anti disability discrimination laws, stating “The states have been anything but hardhearted in this area.”(8) 6.(In reference to Kimel) "You've really got the exact type of record here. And as with age discrimination, disability discrimination, in a constitutional sense, is really difficult to show."(9) 7.(Nothing that the Supreme Court has only required rational basis review for discrimination against the disabled) "There are legitimate reasons for treating the competent differently from the incompetent in certain settings, and what the court has said for some time now is that its going to give states and the federal government quite a bit of latitude when it comes to drawing those distinctions, because these are very difficult social issues and ones that political bodies in each area need quite a bit of latitude over."(10) 8. “I think it's a positive attribute of this system of divided government that when 51 different sovereigns, 51 different legislatures tackle a difficult social problem, they all arrive at different approaches, and the ultimate idea and really the transcendent purpose of federalism is to have them compete for the best solution.”(11) 9. “The text of the ADA, to begin with, makes no mention of any pattern of State violations of the equal protection rights of the disabled. Not one instance of such conduct is identified, whether in the findings and purpose section of the law or in any other Title of the Act. The legislative record is no different. Far from reflecting State insensitivity to the equal-protection rights of their citizens, the legislative record of the ADA ‘acknowledg[es] that States are willing and able to respect [the employment and public access] rights' of the disabled."(citing Florida Prepaid)(10) Age Discrimination 1. MR. SUTTON: . . . while there may well be age discrimination in an Article I sense in the States, in the Federal Government, in the private sector, when it come to Fourteenth Amendment equal protection discrimination by State employers, the record shows absolutely nothing.(13) Federalism 1. “It doesn't get me invited to cocktail parties,” says Sutton. “But I love these issues. I believe in this federalism stuff.”(14) 2. In discussing Boerne, Sutton writes “[t]he decisions strikes a welcome blow for State's rights. Together with Prinz v. United States, 117 S.Ct. 2365 (1997) (which invalidated a portion of the Brady Bill), the case serves as a reminder that federalism remains a vital, not a quaint component of the Court’s jurisprudence.”(15) 3. “Because the Constitution does not treat State and local officials as second-string readers of the Constitution, they (no less than their federal counterparts) are entitled to respect in interpreting their oath to obey the Constitution. Any presumption that Congress has correctly interpreted the Constitution necessarily slights the States’ ability to interpret the same document.”(16) 4. “Too often, however, states and localities sacrifice federalist principles in order to obtain near-term politically-favored results. The public debate occurs not the grounds of structural guarantees of the Constitution, but on the grounds of the substantive legislation at issue – are you a supporter of religious liberties or are you not a supporter of religious liberties? It strikes me that states and localities don't deserve any more victories at the Court if they can't develop a little more courage when it comes to litigating these structural issues. It is frustrating that, in pursuit of particular political goals, the states are not rising up together and defending their authority against encroachments by Congress.“(17) Footnotes (1) Federalist Society Webpage, May 18, 2001, <http://www.fed-soc.org/federalismmain.asp> (2) Tony Mauro, An Unlikely High Court Specialist, Legal Times, Nov. 2, 1998 at 8. (3) Id. (4) Transcript of Bd. of Trustees of Univ. of Alabama v. Garrett, 2000 U.S. Trans LEXIS 50 at *2. (5) Id. at *8-9. (6) Id. at *13. (7) Id. at *14-15. (8) Jonathon Ringel, High Court Invalidates Portion of Disabilities Act, The Recorder, Feb. 22, 2001, at 3. (9) Supreme Court to Hear Case of Two Disabled Workers in Alabama (NPR, radio transcript, Oct. 11, 2000). (10) Id. (11) Id. (12) Bd. Of Trustees of the Univ. of Alabama v. Garrett, Brief for Petitioners, June 22, 2000. (13) Transcript of Kimel v. Florida Bd. of Regents, 1999 U.S. Trans LEXIS 70 at *33. (14) Mauro, supra, at 8. (15) Jeffrey Sutton, City of Boerne v. Flores: A Victory for Federalism, Federalist Society Webpage, May 18, 2001, <http://www.fed-soc.org/fd0120304>. (16) Id. (17) Federalism Revived? The Prinz and City of Boerne Decisions, May 18, 2001, <http://www.fed-soc.org/fd020103.htm>. Back to Top . Use this to Create a “Stop Sutton” Op-ed for Your Local Paper Op-Ed Template Template Op-ed Stop Sutton Campaign Underlined area indicates information you could add to make it local and yours No Mystery to Sutton's Troubling Ideology By Jim Ward The ongoing U.S. Senate filibuster and the high-profile media attention surrounding the appeals court nomination of Miguel Estrada has overshadowed the fact that many other controversial Bush nominees are waiting in the wings. While Democrats are urging the Bush administration to release more information illuminating Estrada's judicial philosophy, there is no mystery about the legal principles that guide another of President Bush's judicial nominees, Jeffrey Sutton. Indeed, an extensive record sheds ample light on Sutton's constitutional philosophies. It's a record that should lead ordinary Americans-especially millions of Americans with disabilities-to fear the consequences of Sutton's confirmation to the Sixth Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals. Appeals courts are the last stop before the U.S. Supreme Court, which hears only a fraction of the cases on which the appeals courts rule. Appeals court confirmations are lifetime appointments and have long-lasting impact on civil rights, workplace safety, privacy rights and other freedoms and protections that Americans cherish. Unfortunately, the ability of ordinary citizens to enforce these rights through federal law would be seriously threatened by Sutton's confirmation. Just ask Patricia Garrett. Garrett had worked at a state-funded Alabama university for 17 years when she was diagnosed with breast cancer. Her supervisor made negative comments about her illness and repeatedly threatened to transfer her to a less demanding job because of her condition. Returning from medical leave, Garrett was demoted, even though she could still perform the requirements of her job. That's when Garrett sought damages under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). In 2001, Garrett's case reached the Supreme Court. Sutton argued the state of Alabama's case, urging the high court to disallow suits against states that violated ADA. In a 5-4 decision, the court narrowly ruled to uphold Alabama's - and Sutton's - position. Sutton's hostility toward ADA, however, isn't based on some technicality of the law. When asked whether his position was meant to challenge only limited portions of the law, Sutton called his argument "a challenge to the ADA across the board." This stand places Sutton far outside of the mainstream and at odds with bipartisan supporters of ADA, including both the first President Bush, who signed ADA into law, and former Senate Majority Leader Robert Dole. The Alabama case is only one of many instances in which Sutton has chosen ideology over justice. In the Olmstead case, for example, he argued that unnecessarily keeping people with disabilities in institutions was not a form of discrimination and that states had no duty under ADA to serve individuals in integrated settings. Sutton and his defenders claimed he was simply representing his clients' positions. But this explanation is unconvincing, especially in the Garrett case. Sutton, who was then Ohio's state solicitor, was under no obligation to represent another state. Doing so would seem to reflect a strong philosophical agreement with that state's view that state employees are beyond ADA's protection. Moreover, Sutton once told the Legal Times that he was always "on the lookout" for states' rights-related cases. At his Senate hearing, Sutton's supporters spoke of his "compassion" for people with disabilities. But this message was sadly reminiscent of what the disability community heard during the pre-ADA years when many elected officials expressed how "sorry" they felt for us, but then declined to ensure our full legal rights. Sutton's radical states' rights philosophy have helped undermine ADA and falsely portray it as an entitlement benefit rather than a civil rights law. This explains why more than 400 national, state and local disability and civil rights organizations are opposing Sutton's nomination. Yet people with disabilities aren't the only casualties of Sutton's extreme agenda. In a Florida case, Sutton argued that states should not be covered by the federal Age Discrimination Act. In another case, Sutton argued that Medicaid recipients cannot sue to protect their rights under the law. Just two years ago, he voiced frustration that states were "not rising up together and defending their authority" against federal laws. As the Senate prepares to vote on Sutton's nomination, its members should think twice about handing a lifetime appointment to one of the nation's highest courts to someone who consistently places his states' rights ideology above the needs of the most vulnerable Americans.     GETTING STARTED   Research.  Look at the editorial pages of your local newspaper for several days to get an idea of how it covers opinion (op-ed) material.  Besides “letters to the editor,” there are columns written by readers, like “In My Opinion,” or “Commentary.”  Read lots of op-eds to see how they’re constructed.  It may help to notice style, content, tone, and incorporate this into your own piece.  Remember, this is OPINION, but an editor makes the decision to run it.   Call the newspaper.  The number is listed in the newspaper, or you can always get it out of the phone book.  Ask to be connected with someone who can answer questions about their editorial policy towards submitting op-ed material.  Once you reach the person with accurate information, ask questions about how to submit an op-ed:  how many words, what format, timeframes, how to submit (fax, e-mail, or hard copy by mail, etc.)  Get the opinion page editors name (correct spelling) and contact information so you can send your article directly to him/her.     WRITING YOUR COMMENTARY   Write the body of your op-ed piece now.  Op-eds are generally about 750 words, so you should prepare a piece of about 600 words as a first draft.  This will be the body of your op-ed.   If the op-ed is newsworthy right now, get it in immediately.  However, you might think about preparing a piece long before it is timely or newsworthy. For example, in advance of an ADA or IDEA anniversary, or in anticipation of an event you are sponsoring.  If you prepare the op-ed piece well in advance, you can fine tune it and have it ready to go when something newsworthy happens related to the issue you’ve written about.   Tie your op-ed to a good “news hook” related to breaking news, whenever possible.  Your op-ed should be slated to run on or near the date of something newsworthy.  For example, an ADA Supreme Court challenge, an event sponsored by a disability organization, or even direct action.   The op-ed editor must realize this is BIG NEWS.  Be sure to have information that shows this is a big news story, use articles that have appeared over the past few months (called clips.) Use this “news hook” and lead your op-ed with that.  Express your point of view clearly and boldly in the first paragraph.  If you have the body written already, you can just add the “hook” when you are ready to get it to get it to the editor.  That way, you can do it quick.  And quick is essential. POINTERS FOR GETTING PUBLISHED 1.     Timeliness.  You MUST get your op-ed into the editor in time for it to be newsworthy.  It WILL NOT get published unless you strictly adhere to the editor’s guidelines, and get it in by any deadline he/she may establish.   2.     What editors want is: a)     Timeliness:  Newsworthy and meets deadlines b)    A well-stated point-of-view with a topical beginning hooked to the news. c)     The view of someone with “standing.”  Standing means that you are an authority on this issue.  Examples: “Parent who has battled his child’s school district,” or “Self-advocate who has escaped from a developmental center.”  If you are on a board or are appointed to a council, and can demonstrate your authority, play it up! d)    The correct length.   3.     Keep it Simple.  Boil your argument down to three major points.  Use simple, short sentences. Avoid fancy words and jargon, acronyms. Make your paragraphs short—no more than three sentences each.   4.     Power Ending.  Close on a strong note.  A short, powerful last paragraph should drive your point home.  And get ready to move your opinion piece the moment big news happens.   Special thanks to Bill Stothers and Mary Johnson. Center for an Accessible Society A version of this information ran in the May/June 1999 Ragged Edge For more information, contact     The Media Advocacy Project Jennifer Burnett: jburnett@dejazzd.com               Janine Bertram-Kemp: janinebk@aol.com  Pitch To Your Local Paper Pitch to editors at local newspaper: Hello, this is ________ calling from ___________. I’m calling because I (or we if it’s an organization) believe it’s important to your readers for the (name of newspaper) to take an editorial stand against federalism and the eroding of the U.S. Constitution’s separation of powers. The administration is nominating activist judges that seek to erode the power of the US legislature to enact law. (This is the initial pitch then you can go on to say…) Jeffrey Sutton, the Ohio attorney nominated to the 6th Circuit federal court is a prime example of an attorney who is leading the charge of arguing states rights with the goal of rolling back domestic policy to before Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal. Right now they are attacking minority rights but social security will be next on their agenda. That affects the majority of your readers. If you get into a dialogue with the editor, you can also use the talking points to help your arguments.  Media Strategy and Talking Points Media Strategy for the Stop Sutton Campaign   Why is a media campaign important?   The average person on the street does not understand the dangers of a judicial activist being appointed to a lifetime seat on the federal bench.  The media is the best way to get our message out to the general public, and mainstream media needs to hear from us.   What can you do?   Write an Op-ed and urge your local paper to publish it.   See the template for an example, or write your own.  See Tips for Getting Op-ed Published.   Call your paper and speak to the editor.  Pitch Sutton, using pitch and talking points.   Contact people around your state who are active media advocates, and get them involved.  Tell them about the campaign.   Conduct a letter to the editor campaign, like advocates in New York have been doing for several weeks.  Ask other advocates to send in their own letters.          Talking Points         Opposing Jeffrey Sutton nomination—Talking points 1.     He has actively pursued a radical agenda so far out of the mainstream and established law that it makes him unqualified to serve as a fair and impartial judge.  2.     He is a judicial activist who has a consistent pattern trying cases that result in legislating from the bench. 3.     He has sought to eliminate individual enforcement of civil rights—he has repeatedly taken action to deny people with disabilities, racial and religious minorities, and the elderly a most basic American right—to have their day in court and an opportunity to prove their case.    4.     Despite a clear national trend towards services for older people and people with disabilities in the community rather than large institutions, Sutton defends states’ rights, effectively supporting large institutions.  In Olmstead v. LC, he urged the Supreme Court to hold that “the ADA does not impose a ‘least restrictive treatment’ requirement on the States” when they administer services to people with disabilities.  5.     Redefining the “Supreme Law of the Land”  In Westside mothers v. Haveman, Sutton filed a brief arguing that Medicaid, or any other law premised on Congress’ Constitutional spending powers, was not the “supreme law of the land.”  Such laws are unenforceable by individuals, he argued, and they do not supercede state laws.  6.     Sutton is on the frontline of implementing the Federalist Society’s states’ rights policies.  This is not just about a conservative justice who’s decisions will have an effect on a few minorities and women.  The Federalist Society’s overarching goal is to roll back domestic policy to before FDR’s New Deal.  Today Sutton is attacking the ADA.  Will Social Security be next? New York Letter Campaign - Examples January 2, 2003 Editor Cortland Standard Cortland, NY 13045   To the Editor In July, 2002, more than 50 advocates attended a picnic sponsored by Access to Independence at Yaman Park to celebrate the 12th anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act which President George Bush, Sr. signed into law in 1990.  The former President Bush has since said that signing this landmark civil rights legislation designed to remove barriers in public accommodation, educational, employment, medical and other areas of society for persons with disabilities was one of his proudest achievements.  Ironically, the ADA is now under direct attack by the current President George W. Bush who has nominated the nation's leading ADA opponent, Jeffrey Sutton, for a lifetime appointment to the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.  Mr. Sutton’s appointment may be re-introduced in the Senate as early as January 7, 2003. Sutton has been one of the leaders in challenging the scope of the ADA and other civil rights laws. He represented the University of Alabama before the Supreme Court in the most recent assault on the ADA. In  arguing that case, which resulted in a widely criticized anti-ADA 5-4 decision handed down last February, Sutton declared the "ADA was not needed," and when asked by one of the Justices whether the issues raised in University of Alabama v. Garret applied mainly to the employment provisions of the ADA, Sutton replied, "It's a challenge to the ADA across the board." Many legislators are reluctant to challenge the President on his selection of Sutton and other equally dangerous appointees.  They argue that Presidents deserve respect in the nomination process and those nominees have a right to a fair hearing to determine fitness to serve.  Senators need to be reminded that their commitment to civil rights does not end with a public debate on the blunders of Trent Lott.  The public is looking for on-going actions which will permit minorities, women and the approximately 20% of the population who live with disabilities to exercise their rights in pursuit of the promise this great country holds for all citizens. Our senators, Hillary Clinton and Charles Schumer, need to hear that we want real commitment to civil rights.  Filling the courts with judges such as Jeffrey Sutton would demonstrate that this commitment is woefully lacking. Senate  switchboard:  202-224-3121   Sincerely,  Mary Beilby Systems Advocate,   Access to Independence of Cortland Co., Inc.  753-7363  On January 6, 2003 I had an article published in the Batavia, NY paper that covers our 3-county area opposing the Sutton nomination to the 6th Circuit Court, advising readers to contact the area senators and the president regarding their opposition to Sutton. Phone numbers were provided for their convenience.  -------------------------------- OPPOSE THIS JUDICIAL NOMINATION! Jeffery M. Sutton is awaiting a hearing in the United States Senate Judiciary Committee for a Judicial Appointment to the Sixth Circuit Court. This gentleman has a record of not supporting issues concerning the rights of handicapped individuals.  He has argued against the validity of the Americans with Disabilities Act to the United States Supreme Court. Protect the rights of handicapped individuals by contacting Senator Hillary Clinton at (716) 854-9725, and Senator Charles Schumer at (716) 846-4111 and ask them to oppose the nomination of Jeffery Sutton to the Sixth Circuit Court.  If you have e-mail, you may contact the president at: president@whitehouse.gov, or call at: (202)456-1111. Thank you for your assistance in this endeavor. Deborah Mammosser, Systems Advocate Genesee Region Independent Living Center 61 Swan Street Batavia, NY  14020   _____   January 3, 2003 Ms. Karen Keefe Editorial Page Editor Niagara Gazette 310 Niagara Street Niagara Falls NY 14301 Dear Editor:  In less than a week the United States Senate Judiciary Committee is going to consider the nomination of Jeffrey M Sutton for a Judicial Appointment to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. In the past Mr. Sutton has successfully argued in the case of Kimmel V. Ohio that the Federal law protecting older workers from discrimination was unconstitutional, and in the case of Garrett V. Alabama that Congress went overboard in passing Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act.  Sutton citing the states’ sovereign immunity said that   Patricia Garrett had no right to sue the University of Alabama for monetary damages after she was fired. This case involved a nurse who had worked for the University for over 20 years and was terminated after asking for reasonable accommodations, including flexible scheduling, following breast cancer surgery. Ms. Garrett can still sue for punitive damages, (i.e. to get her job back) but I ask you, how many lawyers take such cases? Sutton, in his argument, said “the ADA was not needed since all 50 states have anti discrimination laws already”. Sutton has also been quoted as saying that he thinks it’s a “positive attribute of our system of divided government that when 51 different sovereigns and 51 different legislatures tackle a difficult social problem they all arrive at different approaches, and the ultimate and really transcendent purpose of federalism is to have them compete for the best solution”.             While that might make for a good barroom discussion, such a belief should not be found on the federal bench! For it is that type of logic that would also say we can have 51 different speed limits, or 51 different penalties for First Degree Murder.             Federal Judges are lifetime appointments, and should be individuals who understand that some matters will always be of federal concern. Jeffrey Sutton doesn’t share this view and therefore should not be a Federal Judge. Sincerely Daniel F. Vitch Systems Advocate Niagara Frontier Center for Independent Living Inc. (716) 284-2452         Back to Top List of Organizations United in Opposition to the Confirmation of Sutton Sign the Petition Against Sutton Sutton Fact Sheet What If Sutton Got His Way? Ohio Group’s Fight Sutton   Jeffrey Sutton Biography & Quotes Use this Template to Create a “Stop Sutton” Op-ed to Your Local Paper Sutton      ADA Notification       States     Federalism