Government Accountability

Federal and TN State

Case Law Showing How a Courthouse Administrative Order Can Violate ADA, the 14th Amendment, and Tennessee Law

A courthouse administrative order that bans the general public from bringing:

  • cellphones
  • bags
  • electronic devices
  • briefcases
  • medical bags
  • disability‑related equipment

…while allowing:

  • judges
  • attorneys
  • courthouse staff
  • law enforcement

…to carry the same items creates a two‑tier system that courts have repeatedly found unlawful.

Below is the case law that supports this.

I. ADA TITLE II — CASE LAW THAT MAKES THE ORDER UNLAWFUL

1. Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509 (2004)

The U.S. Supreme Court held that access to the courts is a fundamental right, and states must provide reasonable accommodations to ensure people with disabilities can enter and participate.

Why it applies: If a person cannot enter the courthouse because they cannot leave behind:

  • medication
  • medical equipment
  • communication devices
  • disability‑related items

…the administrative order violates Lane because it blocks access to the courts.

2. Olmstead v. L.C., 527 U.S. 581 (1999)

The Supreme Court held that public entities must provide services in the most integrated setting appropriate and cannot isolate or segregate people with disabilities.

Why it applies: A rule that bans the public but exempts insiders segregates people with disabilities and isolates them from equal access.

3. U.S. v. Georgia, 546 U.S. 151 (2006)

The Court held that states can be sued for ADA violations that also violate constitutional rights.

Why it applies: If the administrative order violates ADA and the 14th Amendment, the county is exposed to federal liability.

4. 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(7)

This regulation requires reasonable modifications to policies unless doing so would fundamentally alter the service.

Why it applies: A blanket ban with no ADA exceptions violates this regulation.

II. 14th AMENDMENT — CASE LAW SHOWING UNEQUAL TREATMENT IS UNLAWFUL

1. City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, 473 U.S. 432 (1985)

The Supreme Court held that the government cannot treat people differently without a legitimate, non‑discriminatory reason.

Why it applies: If attorneys, staff, and law enforcement may carry devices and bags, but the public cannot, the rule is not neutral and fails equal‑protection scrutiny.

2. Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12 (1956)

The Court held that states cannot create barriers to court access that apply only to certain groups.

Why it applies: A ban that applies only to the public — not insiders — creates an unconstitutional barrier.

3. Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817 (1977)

The Court held that the government must provide meaningful access to the courts.

Why it applies: If a person cannot enter the courthouse because they cannot leave behind disability‑related items, access is not “meaningful.”

III. TENNESSEE LAW — WHY THE ORDER VIOLATES STATE REQUIREMENTS

1. Tennessee Courthouse Security Standards (Administrative Office of the Courts)

These statewide standards explicitly state:

Medical devices and disability‑related items cannot be treated as prohibited items.

Why it applies: A blanket ban with no ADA exceptions violates Tennessee’s own rules.

2. Tennessee Human Rights Act (T.C.A. § 4‑21‑101 et seq.)

Prohibits discrimination in public services.

Why it applies: A rule that bans the public but exempts insiders is discriminatory on its face.

3. Tennessee Constitution, Article I, § 17

Guarantees the right to access the courts.

Why it applies: A ban that prevents a person from entering the courthouse with medically necessary items violates this right.

4. T.C.A. § 8‑2‑201 and § 8‑2‑202

Require courts to operate in compliance with state and federal law.

Why it applies: An administrative order cannot override ADA Title II or constitutional protections.

IV. WHY SELECTIVE BANS ARE UNLAWFUL

When a rule:

  • bans the public
  • exempts attorneys, staff, and law enforcement
  • provides no ADA accommodations
  • blocks access for people with disabilities

…it violates:

ADA Title II

Equal Protection                                                                                                                                              Due Process                                                                                                                                               Tennessee courthouse security standards                                                                                                       Tennessee nondiscrimination law                                                                                                                Constitutional access‑to‑justice protections

Courts have repeatedly held that administrative convenience is not a valid reason to deny access.