High court to settle dispute over handicapped parking fees
Posted: Thursday, May 19, 2005
LINCOLN, Neb. (AP) -- A case that could force the state to refund hundreds of thousands of dollars to handicapped motorists has reached the Nebraska Supreme Court.
Some 50,000 disabled Nebraskans paid an estimated $465,324 from 1992 to 2000 for placards to hang from their rearview mirrors. The placards signify that the drivers may park in spots set aside for the handicapped.
The high court will hear arguments June 1 that the $3 fee for the placards violated the Americans With Disabilities Act, the very law that gave rise to them.
The 1990 law is perhaps best known for requiring handicapped parking and wheelchair ramps at buildings across the country.
Disabled Nebraskans can get a special license plate for their vehicles at no extra cost.
But until 2000, they had to pay $3 for the blue-and-white placard, which is interchangeable between vehicles.
The state stopped collecting the fees after Lancaster County District Judge Bernard McGinn ruled them unconstitutional. He later ordered the state to refund the fees.
The state argues that the placards were simply an option to buying handicapped license plates.
"By providing for placards, in addition to license plates, the state has exceeded its requirements under the ADA," wrote Assistant Attorney General Lynn Melson in briefs submitted in the case.
But attorney Steve Senn argues that many of his clients are poor and cannot afford a car and need the placards.
"They buy permits not as a valueless decoration, but because permits provide greater access than that provided by plates," Senn said. "Transportation is often provided by friends and family. The permit allows friends and family to provide transportation and to use accessible parking during the travels."
In 2001, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear three cases involving fees under the Americans With Disabilities Act.
The justices looked at appeals arising from placard fees in California, Texas and North Carolina, but chose not to consider any of them.
At issue was the federal government's ban on any state surcharges to the disabled for the cost of providing special services and the larger question of whether Congress had that authority over states.
Federal appeals courts have reached different conclusions about such fees.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned California's $6 application fee for the placards. The appellate court ruled in 1999 that the fee is discriminatory.
The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals threw out a challenge to Texas' planned $5 fee for parking placards. It ruled that the ban on such surcharges is unconstitutional, and dismissed a class-action lawsuit.
The court also added a twist by ruling that the fee ban is "a highly intrusive limit on the core state power to choose revenue sources."
But the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals approved North Carolina's fees for handicapped license plates or parking placards.
Some 50,000 disabled Nebraskans paid an estimated $465,324 from 1992 to 2000 for placards to hang from their rearview mirrors. The placards signify that the drivers may park in spots set aside for the handicapped.
The high court will hear arguments June 1 that the $3 fee for the placards violated the Americans With Disabilities Act, the very law that gave rise to them.
The 1990 law is perhaps best known for requiring handicapped parking and wheelchair ramps at buildings across the country.
Disabled Nebraskans can get a special license plate for their vehicles at no extra cost.
But until 2000, they had to pay $3 for the blue-and-white placard, which is interchangeable between vehicles.
The state stopped collecting the fees after Lancaster County District Judge Bernard McGinn ruled them unconstitutional. He later ordered the state to refund the fees.
The state argues that the placards were simply an option to buying handicapped license plates.
"By providing for placards, in addition to license plates, the state has exceeded its requirements under the ADA," wrote Assistant Attorney General Lynn Melson in briefs submitted in the case.
But attorney Steve Senn argues that many of his clients are poor and cannot afford a car and need the placards.
"They buy permits not as a valueless decoration, but because permits provide greater access than that provided by plates," Senn said. "Transportation is often provided by friends and family. The permit allows friends and family to provide transportation and to use accessible parking during the travels."
In 2001, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear three cases involving fees under the Americans With Disabilities Act.
The justices looked at appeals arising from placard fees in California, Texas and North Carolina, but chose not to consider any of them.
At issue was the federal government's ban on any state surcharges to the disabled for the cost of providing special services and the larger question of whether Congress had that authority over states.
Federal appeals courts have reached different conclusions about such fees.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned California's $6 application fee for the placards. The appellate court ruled in 1999 that the fee is discriminatory.
The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals threw out a challenge to Texas' planned $5 fee for parking placards. It ruled that the ban on such surcharges is unconstitutional, and dismissed a class-action lawsuit.
The court also added a twist by ruling that the fee ban is "a highly intrusive limit on the core state power to choose revenue sources."
But the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals approved North Carolina's fees for handicapped license plates or parking placards.
Story Comments
Read More and Post Comments 0 comment(s)
Please note: The following are comments from readers. In no way do they represent the views of The Sioux City Journal or Lee Enterprises. We will not edit or alter your comments, but we do reserve the right to not post or to remove comments that violate our code of conduct. No comment may contain potentially libelous statements; obscene, explicit or racist language; personal attacks, insults or threats. Terms of Service
