No. 09-17144 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ____________________ JOHN ARMSTRONG, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees v. ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, et al., Defendants-Appellants ____________________ APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ____________________ BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES AS AMICUS CURIAE SUPPORTING APPELLEES AND URGING AFFIRMANCE _____________________ THOMAS E. PEREZ Assistant Attorney General SAMUEL R. BAGENSTOS Deputy Assistant Attorney General MARK L. GROSS CONOR B. DUGAN Attorneys Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Appellate Section - RFK 3720 Ben Franklin Station P.O. Box 14403 Washington, D.C. 20044-4403 (202) 616-7429 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES. ............................................................................ 1 INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES. ................................................................ 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE................................................................................. 2 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT................................................................................ 7 ARGUMENT I THE ADA AND REHABILITATION ACT REGULATIONS ARE NOT CONTRARY TO THE ADA’S OR THE REHABILITATION ACT’S STATUTORY LANGUAGE, NOR ARE THESE REGULATIONS ARBITRARY OR CAPRICIOUS. ..................................................................................... 9 A. The ADA And Rehabilitation Act Regulations. .......................... 9 B. The ADA Regulation Does Not Conflict With The Statute. .............................................................................. 11 C. The ADA Regulation Is Neither Arbitrary Nor Capricious................................................................................ 18 D. The Rehabilitation Act Regulations Governing Contracting Are Valid.............................................................. 19 II DOJ’S REGULATION APPLIES TO THE STATE’S CONTRACTS WITH COUNTIES TO PROVIDE INCARCERATION OF PAROLEES AND INMATES. .................. 21 III THE DISTRICT COURT’S ORDER DOES NOT VIOLATE PRINCIPLES OF FEDERALISM OR SEPARATION OF POWERS............................................................................................ 25 CONCLUSION....................................................................................................... 28 TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued): PAGE CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE -ii­ TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES: PAGE Armstrong v. Davis, 275 F.3d 849 (9th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 812 (2002)............................................................... 4, 6 Armstrong v. Schwarzenegger, No. 94-2307, 2009 WL 2997391 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 16, 2009). .................................................................... passim Armstrong v. Wilson, 124 F.3d 1019 (9th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 524 U.S. 937 (1998)......................................................... 3, 6, 26 Bahrampour v. Lampert, 356 F.3d 969 (9th Cir. 2004). ........................................ 26 Barden v. City of Sacramento, 292 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 539 U.S. 958 (2003)................................................................. 21 Bay Area Addiction Research v. City of Antioch, 179 F.3d 725 (9th Cir. 1999). ....................................................................... 22 Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., 325 U.S. 410 (1945).................................. 22 Bragdon v. Abbott, 524 U.S. 624 (1998). ............................................................... 14 Cannon v. University of Chicago, 441 U.S. 677 (1979)......................................... 14 Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984). ........................................................................... 8, 11-12 Consolidated Rail Corp. v. Darrone, 465 U.S. 624 (1984).................................... 20 Does 1-5 v. Chandler, 83 F.3d 1150 (9th Cir. 1996).............................................. 12 Forest Grove School Dist. v. T.A., 129 S. Ct. 2484 (2009). ................................... 20 Goodyear Atomic Corp. v. Miller, 486 U.S. 174 (1988). ....................................... 14 -iii­ CASES (continued): PAGE Helen L. v. DiDario, 46 F.3d 325 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 813 (1995)........................................................... 12, 15 Henry Ford Health Sys. v. Shalala, 233 F.3d 907 (6th Cir. 2000). ........................ 18 Innovative Health Sys., Inc. v. City of White Plains, 117 F.3d 37 (2d Cir. 1997). .......................................................................... 21 Johnson v. City of Saline, 151 F.3d 564 (6th Cir. 1998). ....................................... 21 Lal v. INS, 255 F.3d 998 (9th Cir. 2001). ............................................................... 22 Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668 (9th Cir. 2001). ..................................... 21 Lorillard v. Pons, 434 U.S. 575 (1978). ................................................................. 20 McGary v. City of Portland, 386 F.3d 1259 (9th Cir. 2004). ................................. 11 Miller v. California Speedway Corp., 536 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 1349 (2009) . ....................................................... 22 New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992).................................................... 26 Oregon Paralyzed Veterans of America v. Regal Cinemas, Inc., 339 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 542 U.S. 937 (2004)............... 22 Pennsylvania Dep’t of Corr. v. Yeskey, 524 U.S. 206 (1998). ............................................................................. passim Phipps v. Sheriff of Cook County, No. 07-C-3889, 2009 WL 4146391 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 25, 2009)............................................... 24 Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, 129 S. Ct. 1125 (2009)...................................... 27 Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997).......................................................... 26 -iv­ CASES (continued): PAGE Reno v. Condon, 528 U.S. 141 (2000).................................................................... 26 Schmidt v. Odell, 64 F. Supp. 2d 1014 (D. Kan. 1999). ......................................... 24 Stinson v. United States, 508 U.S. 36 (1993).......................................................... 23 Thomas Jefferson Univ. v. Shalala, 512 U.S. 504 (1994). ..................................... 22 Travelers Prop. Casualty Co. of America v. Conocophillips Co., 546 F.3d 1142 (9th Cir. 2008). ..................................................................... 25 United States v. Cinemark USA, Inc., 348 F.3d 569 (6th Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 542 U.S. 937 (2004)................................................................. 22 United States v. Kimble, 107 F.3d 712 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1282 (1997)............................................................... 19 United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218 (2001). ............................................... 12 United States v. Morton, 467 U.S. 822 (1984). ...................................................... 12 Western Coal Traffic League v. United States, 719 F.2d 772 (5th Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 953 (1984)....................................... 18 Zimmerman v. State of Oregon Department of Justice, 170 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1189 (2001)................................ 16-17 Zimring v. Olmstead, 138 F.3d 893 (11th Cir. 1998), aff’d in part and vacated in part on other grounds, 527 U.S. 581 (1999). .................................................................................... 16 -v­ STATUTES: PAGE Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.. ...................................... 2 42 U.S.C. 12131-12134. ................................................................................. 2 42 U.S.C. 12132. ........................................................................................ 2, 9 42 U.S.C. 12134. ...................................................................................... 2, 12 42 U.S.C. 12134(a). ........................................................................................ 9 42 U.S.C. 12134(b)............................................................................... 7, 9, 13 42 U.S.C. 12182(b)(1)(A)(i)......................................................................... 13 42 U.S.C. 12201(a). ...................................................................................... 14 42 U.S.C. 12206. .......................................................................................... 12 42 U.S.C. 12206(c)(3). ................................................................................. 10 Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. 794. ........................................................... 2-3 29 U.S.C. 794. .............................................................................................. 12 29 U.S.C. 794(a)........................................................................................... 11 REGULATIONS: 28 C.F.R. 35.102. .................................................................................................... 10 28 C.F.R. 35.130(b)(1)..................................................................................... passim 28 C.F.R. 41.51(b)(1).............................................................................. 7, 11, 13, 19 28 C.F.R. 42.104(b)(1)............................................................................................ 20 28 C.F.R. 42.503(b). ............................................................................................... 19 28 C.F.R. 42.503(b)(1)...................................................................................... 11, 13 31 Fed. Reg. 10,265 (July 29, 1966)....................................................................... 20 43 Fed. Reg. 2132 (Jan. 13, 1978). ..................................................................... 7, 13 45 Fed. Reg. 37,620 (June 3, 1980). ....................................................................... 14 56 Fed. Reg. 35,694 (July 26, 1991)....................................................................... 10 -vi­ LEGISLATIVE HISTORY: PAGE H.R. Rep. No. 485, Pt. 2, 101st Cong., 2d Sess. (1990). ........................................ 15 H.R. Rep. No. 485, Pt. 3, 101st Cong., 2d Sess. (1990). ........................................ 15 S. Rep. No. 890, 95th Cong., 2d Sess.. ................................................................... 20 MISCELLANEOUS: The Americans with Disabilities Act Title II Technical Assistance Manual, II-1.3000, Illustration 4, available at, http://www.ada.gov/taman2.html#II-1.3000. ............................................... 11 -vii­ IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ____________________ No. 09-17144 JOHN ARMSTRONG, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees v. ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, et al., Defendants-Appellants ____________________ APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ____________________ BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES AS AMICUS CURIAE SUPPORTING APPELLEES AND URGING AFFIRMANCE _____________________ STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES 1. Whether the Attorney General validly promulgated, pursuant to Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), a regulation that requires public entities to ensure that contractors comply with the ADA in carrying out their contracts. 2. Whether the regulation applies to the State’s contracts with counties to provide incarceration of state parolees and prisoners. - 2 - 3. Whether the district court’s order violates principles of federalism and separation of powers. INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES This appeal concerns California’s obligations under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq., and the validity of the Attorney General’s regulations promulgated to enforce Title II. Part A of Title II, 42 U.S.C. 12131-12134, prohibits public entities from discriminating against individuals with disabilities in the provision of public services. The ADA required the Attorney General to promulgate regulations implementing Part A. One of the regulations promulgated by the Attorney General, 28 C.F.R. 35.130(b)(1), which states that a “public entity, in providing any aid, benefit, or service, may not, directly or through contractual, licensing, or other arrangements” discriminate against people with disabilities, is at issue in this appeal. The United States also has significant enforcement responsibilities under the ADA. STATEMENT OF THE CASE 1. The issues in this case arise from a class action suit originally filed in 1994. California state prison inmates and parolees with disabilities sued the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) and the Board of Parole Hearings (BPH), alleging violations of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29