pennsylvania
department
correctionset
al
yeskey
argued
april
decided
june
held
state
prisons
fall
squarely
within
title
ii
statutory
definition
public
entity
includes
instrumentality
state
local
government
unlike
situation
obtained
gregory
ashcroft
ambiguous
exception
renders
coverage
uncertain
reason
requirement
articulated
gregory
applicable
federal
intrusion
upon
administration
state
prisons
met
petitioners
attempts
derive
intent
cover
prisons
statutory
references
benefits
programs
qualified
individual
rejected
prison
programs
one
benefits
restricted
qualified
inmates
statute
lack
ambiguity
also
requires
rejection
petitioners
appeal
doctrine
constitutional
doubt
address
issue
whether
applying
ada
state
prisons
consti
tutional
exercise
congress
power
either
commerce
clause
fourteenth
amendment
addressed
neither
lower
courts
pp
affirmed
scalia
delivered
opinion
unanimous
notice
opinion
subject
formal
revision
publication
preliminary
print
reports
readers
requested
notify
reporter
decisions
washington
typographical
formal
errors
order
corrections
may
made
preliminary
print
goes
press
pennsylvania
department
corrections
et
al
petitioners
ronald
yeskey
writ
certiorari
appeals
third
circuit
june
justice
scalia
delivered
opinion
question
us
whether
title
ii
americans
disabilities
act
ada
stat
et
seq
prohibits
public
entity
discriminating
qualified
individual
disability
account
individual
disability
see
covers
inmates
state
prisons
respondent
ronald
yeskey
inmate
sentenced
may
serve
months
pennsylvania
correctional
facility
sentencing
recommended
placed
pennsylvania
motivational
boot
camp
offenders
successful
completion
led
release
parole
six
months
see
stat
tit
et
seq
purdon
supp
medical
history
hypertension
however
refused
admission
filed
suit
petitioners
commonwealth
pennsylvania
department
corrections
several
department
officials
alleging
exclusion
boot
camp
violated
ada
district
dismissed
failure
state
claim
fed
rule
civ
proc
holding
ada
inapplicable
inmates
state
prisons
third
circuit
reversed
granted
certiorari
petitioners
argue
state
prisoners
covered
ada
reason
held
gregory
ashcroft
state
judges
covered
age
discrimination
employment
act
adea
et
seq
gregory
relied
canon
construction
absent
unmistakably
clear
expression
intent
alter
usual
constitutional
balance
federal
government
interpret
statute
preserve
rather
destroy
substantial
sovereign
powers
citations
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
may
well
exercising
ultimate
control
management
state
prisons
like
establishing
qualifications
state
government
officials
traditional
essential
state
function
subject
rule
gregory
one
primary
functions
government
said
preservation
societal
order
enforcement
criminal
law
maintenance
penal
institutions
essential
part
task
procunier
martinez
overruled
grounds
thornburgh
abbott
difficult
imagine
activity
state
stronger
interest
preiser
rodriguez
assuming
without
deciding
rule
govern
application
ada
administration
state
prisons
think
requirement
rule
amply
met
statute
language
unmistakeably
includes
state
prisons
prisoners
within
coverage
situation
comparable
gregory
although
adea
plainly
covered
state
employees
contained
exception
policymaking
level
made
impossible
us
conclude
statute
plainly
cover
ed
appointed
state
judges
ada
plainly
covers
state
institutions
without
exception
cast
coverage
prisons
doubt
title
ii
ada
provides
subject
provisions
subchapter
qualified
individual
disability
shall
reason
disability
excluded
participation
denied
benefits
services
programs
activities
public
entity
subjected
discrimination
entity
state
prisons
fall
squarely
within
statutory
definition
public
entity
includes
department
agency
special
purpose
district
instrumentality
state
local
government
petitioners
contend
phrase
benefits
services
programs
activities
public
entity
creates
ambiguity
state
prisons
provide
prisoners
benefits
programs
services
activities
terms
ordinarily
understood
disagree
modern
prisons
provide
inmates
many
recreational
activities
medical
services
educational
vocational
programs
least
theoretically
benefit
prisoners
disabled
prisoners
excluded
participation
see
block
rutherford
referring
contact
visitation
program
hudson
palmer
discussing
rehabilitative
programs
services
olim
wakinekona
referring
appropriate
correctional
programs
offenders
indeed
statute
establishing
motivational
boot
camp
issue
case
refers
program
stat
tit
purdon
supp
text
ada
provides
basis
distinguishing
programs
services
activities
provided
public
entities
prisons
also
disagree
petitioners
contention
term
qualified
individual
disability
ambiguous
insofar
concerns
application
state
prisoners
statute
defines
term
include
anyone
disability
without
reasonable
modifications
rules
policies
practices
removal
architectural
communication
transportation
barriers
provision
auxiliary
aids
services
meets
essential
eligibility
requirements
receipt
services
participation
programs
activities
provided
public
entity
petitioners
argue
words
eligibility
participation
imply
voluntariness
part
applicant
seeks
benefit
state
thus
connote
prisoners
held
wrong
two
counts
first
words
connote
voluntariness
see
webster
new
international
dictionary
ed
eligible
fitted
qualified
chosen
elected
legally
morally
suitable
eligible
candidate
id
participate
share
common
others
partake
share
debate
eligible
individuals
participate
voluntarily
many
programs
services
activities
others
eligible
participation
mandatory
drug
addict
convicted
drug
possession
example
might
part
sentence
required
participate
drug
treatment
program
addicts
eligible
secondly
even
words
connote
voluntariness
still
true
prison
services
programs
activities
excluded
act
participation
voluntary
prison
law
library
example
service
use
activity
prisoners
free
take
leave
cf
gabel
lynaugh
per
curiam
pro
se
civil
rights
litigation
become
recreational
activity
state
prisoners
case
hand
governing
law
makes
clear
participation
boot
camp
program
voluntary
see
stat
tit
purdon
supp
eligible
inmate
may
make
application
motivational
boot
camp
selection
committee
permission
participate
motivational
boot
camp
program
onditio
participa
tion
applicant
agree
bound
certain
terms
conditions
finally
petitioners
point
statute
statement
findings
purpose
mention
prisons
prisoners
perhaps
questionable
since
provision
reference
discrimination
critical
areas
institutionalization
thought
include
penal
institutions
assuming
true
assuming
proves
petitioners
contend
congress
envisio
ada
applied
state
prisoners
brief
petitioners
context
unambiguous
statutory
text
irrelevant
said
fact
statute
situations
expressly
anticipated
congress
demonstrate
ambiguity
demonstrates
breadth
sedima
imrex
citation
omitted
conclusion
text
ada
ambiguous
causes
us
also
reject
petitioners
appeal
doctrine
constitutional
doubt
requires
interpret
statutes
avoid
grave
doubtful
constitutional
questions
ex
rel
attorney
general
delaware
hudson
doctrine
enters
statute
susceptible
two
constructions
ibid
reason
disregard
petitioners
invocation
statute
title
public
services
stat
title
statute
limit
plain
meaning
text
interpretive
purposes
use
shed
light
ambiguous
word
phrase
trainmen
baltimore
ohio
address
another
issue
presented
petitioners
whether
application
ada
state
prisons
constitutional
exercise
congress
power
either
commerce
clause
compare
printz
garcia
san
antonio
metropolitan
transit
authority
fourteenth
amendment
see
city
boerne
flores
petitioners
raise
question
brief
see
brief
petitioner
addressed
neither
district
appeals
petitioners
raised
gregory
issue
issues
neither
raised
considered
appeals
ordinarily
consider
adickes
kress
citations
omitted
see
also
dothard
rawlinson
duignan
decline
plain
text
title
ii
ada
unambiguously
extends
state
prison
inmates
judgment
appeals
affirmed
ordered