Supreme Court National Call-in Day Friday, Sept 14

Disability groups, including The Arc, have come out in opposition to Brett Kavanagh's nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court. They are joining efforts on a national call-in day to raise awareness about their concerns with Judge Kavanagh's record. We encourage you to review their concerns and engage with your senators, as appropriate.

• You can reach Senators Murray and Cantwell through the Capitol Switchboard at (202) 224-3121.
• This easy tool also gives you information about your federal elected representatives - including what committees they serve on and local office/contact information. Sometimes you can have the strongest impact by meeting with staff to help them understand an issue you care about. It can influence both the immediate concern and future issues.
• Background materials on Kavanaugh and disability issues 

 Sharing from the Center for Public Representation:

Based on Judge Kavanaugh’s record on issues important to people with disabilities, disability groups strongly oppose his confirmation.

Last week's confirmation hearing did nothing to ease concerns about Judge Kavanaugh being appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The disability community made history on Friday when Liz Weintraub became the first person with an intellectual disability to testify at a Supreme Court confirmation hearing. As a policy expert and leader in the disability community, Liz testified about what people with disabilities stand to lose if Kavanaugh is confirmed to the Supreme Court, including the right to self-determination and to make one’s own decisions. Please listen to her powerful words.  Liz sounded the alarm - now it’s OUR job to make the Senate listen to what our community has to say.

Judge Kavanaugh's confirmation threatens hard-won rights and protections for people with disabilities. His record shows risk to:

• Access to health care
• Civil rights protections
• Opportunities for people with disabilities to make choices about their own lives
• Enforcement of laws protecting people with disabilities

For decades, the disability community has fought for the right for people with disabilities to live in and participate the community, access healthcare services that help them do so, and make decisions about their own lives. We can’t go back.

We can make all of our voices heard together on a Supreme Court National Call-in Day on Friday, Sept 14, 2018.

Background materials on Kavanaugh and disability issues

- CPR is a national legal advocacy center for people with disabilities

Why this is important

The Supreme Court makes decisions about many disability laws and programs, such as:

• The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The ADA says it is illegal to discriminate against people with disabilities. 
• Medicaid. Medicaid provides health care and the services people with disabilities need to live in our communities.
• The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). IDEA says students with disabilities have a right to education.
• The Affordable Care Act (ACA). The ACA made it easier for people to get healthcare and made it illegal to discriminate against people with disabilities in health care.

If Judge Kavanaugh joins the Supreme Court, he could make decisions about these laws and many others. How Judge Kavanaugh thinks about these laws will affect the lives of people with disabilities. His decisions could change how people with disabilities are able to live, learn, and work in the community.

What You Can Do

• Educate your senators about Kavanaugh’s disability record
• Call your senators through the Capitol Switchboard at (202) 224-3121  
• Write to your U.S. senators. You can email Senator Murray here  and email Senator Cantwell here. 

Weaken ADA? Bill clears committee

Rights - House Committee Approves Bill Limiting Enforcement of Americans with Disabilities Act

-

From The Arc's national staff:

On September 7, the House Judiciary Committee approved the ADA Education and Reform Act of 2017 (H.R.620) by a vote of 15-9. This bill prevents lawsuits over architectural barriers violating the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) unless an individual provides "specific enough" notice and allows 120 days for a business to correct that barrier.

The bill was introduced on the belief that the ADA has led to "frivolous lawsuits" where plaintiffs and attorneys intentionally seek barriers in order to extract funds. However, the ADA does not allow courts to award monetary damages to plaintiffs. Where those damages are available, it is through state law. Furthermore, there are already laws on the books that allow punishment of attorneys who represent clients in frivolous lawsuits.

This bill effectively eliminates incentives for businesses to comply with federal law until 120 days after a person with a disability asks them to do so. See this fact sheet from Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund for more information.

• Call Congress: 202-224-3121

ADA: Hope, leverage and opportunity

Today we celebrate the Americans with Disabilities Act, while remaining ever vigilant

Dear Arc Community:

It has been 27 years since the landmark enactment of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibiting discrimination toward people with disabilities.  While it has not been a perfect journey, we pause to celebrate that the ADA offers us continued hope, leverage, and opportunity to ensure equity for children and adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities in our public schools, places of employment, in public accommodations, government services, and transportation. 

The ADA opened the door for the Supreme Court's decision in Olmstead v. L.C., a ruling that requires states to eliminate unnecessary segregation of people with disabilities and provide supports in the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs. 

“Confinement in an institution severely diminishes the everyday life activities of individuals, including family relations, social contacts, work options, economic independence, educational advancement, and cultural enrichment."   U.S. Supreme Court, Olmstead v. L.C., 1999