A doubleheader: Federal Court Accessibility and Tribal Sovereign Immunity

Today’s blog entry comes to me courtesy of Prof. Leonard Sandler, a clinical law professor at the University of Iowa. He sent me the case of Goldup v. Casino decided by the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on January 31, 2025. There are two aspects of the case, which can be found here. The first aspect of the case is a ringing endorsement by a federal judge concerning the right of a person with a disability, in this case someone who is severely dyslexic, to get reasonable accommodations from the court. The second aspect of the case involves whether there are any limits on the sovereign immunity of Indian tribes. We previously discussed how far sovereign immunity can go with respect to Indian tribes, here. As usual, the blog entry is divided into categories and they are: court’s ringing endorsement of the right of a person with a disability to receive accommodations from the court; thoughts/takeaways on the court’s endorsement of disability inclusion; why I put this case on my to follow list; and thought/takeaways on plaintiff’s claims in his motion opposing the motion to dismiss.

I

Court’s Ringing Endorsement of the Right of a Person with a Disability to Receive Accommodations from the Court (Taken From the Actual Opinion)

1. Plaintiff represents that he has been diagnosed with dyslexia and a learning disability, thus presenting “significant challenges in written communication, including organizing and articulating complex legal arguments effectively.” Mot. at 2. Citing this nation’s longstanding recognition of leniency afforded pro se litigants and the United States Supreme Court’s extension of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) to judicial proceedings, see id. at 3 (citing Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509 (2004)), Plaintiff essentially seeks a reasonable accommodation to ensure his disabilities do not “impair his ability to communicate effectively” with the Court, see id. In short, Plaintiff argues that holding [*4]  an oral argument would aid the Court in addressing the complex issues at the heart of this case in light of Plaintiff’s struggle to communicate in writing. See id. at 4 (citing Greenwood v. Fed. Aviation Admin., 28 F.3d 971 (9th Cir. 1994)). Defendants have not filed a response.

2. Nevertheless, “[t]he [*5]  Judicial Conference of the United States has long supported full access to judicial proceedings by all segments of the disabled community.” at *4. To that end, the Judicial Conference has “adopted a policy that all federal courts should provide reasonable accommodations to persons with communications disabilities.” Report of the Proceedings of the Judicial Conference 75 (Sept. 1995); see also Guide to Judiciary Policy (the “Guide“), Vol. 5, Ch 2, § 255 (requiring courts to “provide sign language interpreters or other auxiliary aids and services to participants in federal judicial proceedings who are deaf, hearing impaired, or have communication disabilities”).³ Thus, although the Court finds that the written materials Plaintiff has filed with the Court are coherent and clearly articulate Plaintiff’s arguments as they pertain to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, it is in the interests of justice, because of Plaintiff’s purported dyslexia and learning disabilities, to permit Plaintiff an opportunity to orally express to the Court his positions as they relate to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. However, “to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of [this] proceeding,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 1, the Court [*6]  will not require the Parties to appear in person and will only allow each side a modest ten (10) minutes to make their presentation.

³ The Guide, available only to the federal judiciary at http://jnet.ao.dcn/Guide/Index.html, “is the official medium by which direction as to courtroom procedures and other information are provided to the Federal Judiciary in support of its day-to-day operations. The Guide also codifies policies which are promulgated

II

Thoughts/Takeaways on the Court’s Endorsement of Disability Inclusion

1. The plaintiff is proceeding pro se.
2. Footnote 3 in the opinion, which is reproduced above, appears to be missing information (there would seem to be words that follow after the word, “promulgated), and it doesn’t appear in the opinion. Maybe, the court will fix that at a later time.
3. While I did not excerpt it to this blog entry, the court does say that title II of the ADA does not apply to the federal government.
4. Federal courts that are not part of executive agencies do not have to comply with the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
5. Federal courts that are part of executive agencies do have to comply with §504 of the Rehabilitation Act.
6. Federal courts that are part of executive agencies do have to comply with §501 of the Rehabilitation Act with respect to their employees. §501 uses the liability and standards of Title I of the ADA.
7. When one looks at the Administrative Office of The Courts regulations, which are extremely difficult to find, there isn’t much there beyond accommodating those with hearing loss. See here. What is important for our purposes is the sentence in the opinion saying that, “[t]he Judicial Conference of the United States has long supported full access to judicial proceedings by all segments of the disabled community.” (Emphasis added). This court is saying that all segments of the disabled community need to have full access to judicial proceedings.
8. Also important, is the sentence that, “the Judicial Conference has “adopted a policy that all federal courts should provide reasonable accommodations to persons with communications disabilities. Report of the Proceedings of the Judicial Conference 75 (Sept. 1995).” So, this court is saying that the judicial conference has made it clear that communication disabilities, a concept that goes beyond hearing loss, also need to be accommodated.
9. I get cases at least once a month from around the country regarding courts denying access to persons with disabilities. They are very rarely about the actions of federal courts, which is very good news considering the tremendous discretion that federal judges have with respect to accommodating persons with disabilities outside of those with hearing loss. Most of those cases I hear of involve family law judges from around the country, and it does not break down into traditional red or blue states either. If it is not a family law court that is coming across my desk, it is invariably a state court of some kind. I have had one situation come across my desk involving federal courts, but it is not common at all.
10. I chair the Federal Bar Association Disability Best Practices Working Group. Within the next two months, we will be putting out an accessibility manual for the federal courts. Our hope is that if the federal courts have an easy to understand and use manual, that it will be much easier for persons with disabilities to access federal courts, whether the courts are a part of executive agencies or not. When the manual goes live, I will certainly make a note of that in the blog entry for that week.

III

Why I Have Put This Case on My to Follow List

1. This case involves an individual who sued a casino run by an Indian tribe for disability discrimination. His brief against the motion to dismiss mentions a service animal. So, it is likely that this is a case where the casino refused to allow him into the casino with his service animal. The Indian tribe defended on the grounds that the claim should be thrown out because of sovereign immunity. We discussed such a case  here. That case went quite far with respect to sovereign immunity of Indian tribes saying that both damages and injunctive relief were subject to sovereign immunity.
2. Plaintiff’s make several arguments in his memorandum against the motion to dismiss, see immediately below, that will be very interesting to see how the court reacts to.
3. Plaintiff claims that sovereign immunity is waived when it comes to commercial enterprises interacting with non-tribal members.
4. Plaintiff claims Indian casinos are places of public accommodations under 42 U.S.C. §12181(7).
5. Plaintiff claims that there is a distinction to be made between a tribe’s governmental and commercial functions and therefore, federal civil rights laws, such as the ADA, apply to tribal-run businesses operating as public accommodations.
6. Plaintiff claims that the current parties to the litigation are fully capable of adequately representing the interests of any absent entities.
7. Plaintiff claims that through the collection of taxes, the IRS becomes a federal partner thereby subjecting the casino to federal laws.
8. Plaintiff claims that an individual responsible for enforcing discriminatory policies can be held personally liable under the ADA.

IV

Thoughts/Takeaways on Plaintiff’s Claims in His Motion Opposing the Motion to Dismiss

1. Plaintiff is going to have to get around the case we discussed here, which is a published decision. Granted, that case is also a district court case, out of Arizona and not the Southern District of California, but it is published. As a published case, that means it is precedential, though certainly not binding on another district court even if it is published.
2. Undoubtedly, the casino would be covered as a place of public accommodation under 42 U.S.C. §12181(7).
3. If it can be shown that the casino receives federal funds, cases invariably hold that sovereign immunity is waived by the receipt of federal funds.
4. The distinction between tribal functions and commercial enterprise functions is a very interesting one, and I am definitely interested to see how the court ultimately rules on that.
5. The IRS involvement as a federal partner is definitely, as the plaintiff notes, a novel one.
6. The cases with a rare exception from the 11^th Circuit involving retaliation by a title II entity against a person with a disability, here, do not allow for individual liability under the ADA.

I will be very interested to see the ruling on this case and whether it is appealed. I am not sure when that ruling will come down.