Nationwide, state disability rights teams enter distant entry case pending at federal appeals court docket

National and New Hampshire advocacy groups for people with disabilities have commented on the landmark litigation that began as an attempt by a group of physically challenged Democratic lawmakers to gain remote access to House meetings during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, with one to start with The National Disability Rights Network, the New Hampshire Disability Rights Center, and ABLE-New Hampshire have jointly filed an amicus briefing in support of plaintiff Democrats in the six months since the lawsuit filed in the U.S. First District Court of Appeal’s scheduled trial on September 9th Filed in February, the subject has expanded to a broader question of whether a legislature is immune from requirements to comply with federal laws that require “reasonable accommodation” for people with disabilities – side letter that the three groups “understand that the in this case rights implied firmly in the feet. enshrined in deral and New Hampshire Constitutions and that the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is an adequate and constitutional means of requiring that the facilities and electoral processes used by New Hampshire House be human, given the history of widespread discrimination against people with disabilities with disabilities. ”“ Effectively denying these lawmakers access to the duties of their office raises critical concerns about the 30-year protection afforded all Americans under the ADA and democracy itself, ”it said joint letter. “The New Hampshire legislature’s failure to consider lawmakers with disabilities violates the constitutional rights of both federal and state legislatures and their constituents.” Our case is now taking on a significance that extends well beyond this issue of being the spokesman for a group Legislators denied the right to attend the House of Representatives meeting, ”Cushing told WMUR in an email. “It’s about the applicability of the ADA or the federal government’s protection of fundamental rights to any legislature.” The court’s decision will affect everyone with a disability in our country, “wrote Cushing, submitted by Cushing and six other members of Democratic New Hampshire House who suffer from medical conditions that make them particularly susceptible to serious illness from COVID-19. They filed the lawsuit in the US District Court in Concord after Republican spokesman Sherman Packard refused to allow them remote access to the entire House, citing a house rule that was adopted and confirmed in several votes by the GOP majority . The Democrats argued that the precautions were required under the federal ADA and the Rehabilitation Act. The attorney general, who represents Packard and the GOP majority in the House of Representatives, responded that the House of Representatives has immunity from such lawsuits. A U.S. District Court judge approved the House of Representatives and dismissed the Democrats ‘action shortly after it was filed, ruling that the House of Representatives’ remote access ban was “closely related to its core legislative functions,” which is the standard for the application of legislative immunity was. But that ruling was overturned on appeal by a three-person panel of the First District Court, which ruled 3-0 in April that the ADA and Rehabilitation Act replace statutory immunity. The appellate court referred the case back to the court of first instance with instructions to hold hearings to determine whether the plaintiff lawmakers and more than 20 others affected by their conditions have qualifying disabilities as defined in the ADA state requested a trial “En banc” by the full six-person appellate bench, telling the court that it would ask the US Supreme Court if the trial were denied. In early June, the appeals court approved the hearing and set a schedule for the parties to file and interested outside circles. The appeals court also asked the US Department of Justice to file a brief referring to the “complexity of this case.” The parties’ pleadings, repeating their earlier arguments, were filed early last week. The plaintiffs’ brief is here and the House of Representatives brief is here. The disability rights group joined the case on Friday, while the Justice Department has until Friday this week to decide whether to file the case and file a brief. When the three-member appeal panel heard oral arguments on the case in April, the judges asked if the increasing availability of vaccines at the time would make the case contentious. Vaccines have been widely used since then, but the Delta variant has sparked an increase in cases in New Hampshire and elsewhere, subsiding almost exclusively in unvaccinated people, there is a possibility the pandemic may increase again, vaccines fail to protect some immune-compromising disabilities, new variants that Reduce the effectiveness of vaccines or other infectious diseases occur Health of lawmakers with pre-existing conditions triggered or exacerbated by ongoing or future public health threats. This does not solve this problem and it is imperative that remote access is permitted as a reasonable precaution in the future. “Failure to make reasonable accommodation violates the rights of disabled lawmakers and the rights of their voters.”

CONCORD, NH –

National and New Hampshire advocacy groups for people with disabilities have commented on the landmark legal battle that began as an attempt by a group of physically challenged Democratic lawmakers to gain remote access to House meetings during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The National Disability Rights Network, the New Hampshire Disability Rights Center and ABLE-New Hampshire have jointly filed an amicus brief in support of the plaintiff with a trial in the U.S. First District Court of Appeals scheduled for early September.

In the six months since the lawsuit was filed in February, the issue has expanded into a broader question of whether a legislature is immune from requirements to comply with federal laws that provide “reasonable accommodation” for people with disabilities.

Attorney Joshua Gordon wrote in a 31-page letter that the three groups “understand that the rights involved in this case are firmly enshrined in the federal and New Hampshire Constitution, and that given the history of ubiquitous discrimination against people with disabilities, the three groups understand that Americans with The Disabilities Act (ADA) is an appropriate and constitutional means to require that the New Hampshire House facilities and electoral processes accommodate people with disabilities. “

“Effectively denying these lawmakers access to the duties of their office raises critical concerns about the 30-year protection afforded to all Americans under the ADA and democracy itself,” the joint letter said. “The failure of New Hampshire lawmakers to accommodate lawmakers with disabilities violates federal and state constitutional rights of both lawmakers and their constituents.”

New Hampshire House Democratic leader Renny Cushing, the lead plaintiff in the case, welcomed the entry of national and local disability rights groups.

“Our case is now taking on a significance that extends well beyond this issue in which the spokesman is denying a group of lawmakers the right to attend the House of Representatives meeting,” Cushing told WMUR in an email. “What is at stake is the applicability of the ADA or any protection of fundamental rights by the federal government to any legislative branch.

“The decision that the court will make will affect everyone with a disability in our country,” wrote Cushing.

The lawsuit was brought by Cushing and six other members of the Democratic New Hampshire House who suffer from medical conditions that make them particularly susceptible to serious illness from COVID-19. They filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court in Concord after Republican spokesman Sherman Packard refused to allow them remote access to entire House meetings, citing a house rule that had passed and confirmed the GOP majority in multiple votes .

The Democrats argued that the accommodations were required under the federal ADA and Rehabilitation Act. The attorney general, who represents Packard and the majority of the House GOPs, responded that the House of Representatives has immunity from such lawsuits.

A U.S. District Court judge approved the House of Representatives and dismissed the Democrats’ lawsuit shortly after it was filed. He ruled that the house rule prohibiting remote access “is closely related to its core legislative functions,” which is the standard for applying legal immunity.

However, that judgment was overturned on appeal by a three-person panel of the first district court, which ruled 3-0 in April that the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act replace statutory immunity.

The appellate court referred the case to the court of first instance with instructions to hold hearings to determine whether the plaintiff legislature and more than 20 others affected by their condition have qualifying disabilities within the meaning of the ADA.

The state requested an “en banc” sample through the full six-member appellate bank and told the court that if the sample was rejected, the US Supreme Court would be asked to hear the case.

At the beginning of June, the appeals court approved the hearing and set a schedule for the submission of pleadings by the parties and interested outside parties. The appeals court also asked the US Department of Justice to file a brief referring to the “complexity of this case.”

The parties’ pleadings, repeating their earlier arguments, were filed early last week.

The plaintiffs brief is here and the House brief is here.

The disability rights group joined the case on Friday, while the Justice Department has until Friday this week to decide whether to open the case and file a brief.

When the three-member appeal panel heard oral arguments on the case in April, the judges asked if the increasing availability of vaccines at the time would make the case contentious. Vaccines have been widely used since then, but the Delta variant has caused a surge in cases in New Hampshire and elsewhere, almost exclusively in unvaccinated people.

The Disability Rights Group investigated the question in their letter, writing:

“While the COVID-19 pandemic may wane, there is a possibility that the pandemic will intensify again, that vaccines may fail to protect some immune-compromising disabilities, that new variants may reduce the effectiveness of vaccines, or that other infectious diseases may emerge.

“These could have catastrophic health effects for lawmakers whose pre-existing conditions are triggered or exacerbated by ongoing or future public health threats. This does not solve this problem and it is imperative that remote access is permitted as an appropriate solution for the future.

“Failure to make reasonable accommodation violates the rights of disabled lawmakers and the rights of their voters.”