Page:United States Reports 546.pdf/372

 546US1

Unit: $U14

[08-22-08 15:39:41] PAGES PGT: OPIN

Cite as: 546 U. S. 151 (2006)

161

Stevens, J., concurring

the only constitutional right applicable in the prison context and therefore relevant to the abrogation issue. As we ex­ plain, when the District Court and the Court of Appeals re­ visit that issue, they should analyze Goodman’s claims to see whether they state “actual constitutional violations (under either the Eighth Amendment or some other constitutional provision),” ante, at 159 (emphasis added), and to evaluate whether “Congress’s purported abrogation of sovereign im­ munity [in such contexts] is nevertheless valid,” ibid. This approach mirrors that taken in Lane, which identiﬁed a con­ stellation of “basic constitutional guarantees” that Title II seeks to enforce and ultimately evaluated whether Title II was an appropriate response to the “class of cases” at hand. 541 U. S., at 522–523, 531. The Court’s focus on Goodman’s Eighth Amendment claims arises simply from the fact that those are the only constitutional violations the Eleventh Cir­ cuit found him to have alleged properly. See App. A to Pet. for Cert. in No. 04–1236, pp. 18a–19a. Moreover, our approach today is fully consistent with our recognition that the history of mistreatment leading to Con­ gress’ decision to extend Title II’s protections to prison inmates was not limited to violations of the Eighth Amend­ ment. See Lane, 541 U. S., at 524–525 (describing “back­ drop of pervasive unequal treatment” leading to enactment of Title II); see also, e. g., Board of Trustees of Univ. of Ala. v. Garrett, 531 U. S. 356, 391–424 (2001) (Appendixes to opinion of Breyer, J., dissenting) (listing submissions made to Congress by the Task Force on the Rights and Em­ powerment of Americans with Disabilities showing, for ex­ ample, that prisoners with developmental disabilities were subject to longer terms of imprisonment than other prison­ ers); 2 House Committee on Education and Labor, Legisla­ tive History of Public Law 101–336: The Americans with Disabilities Act, 101st Cong., 2d Sess., 1331 (Comm. Print 1990) (stating that persons with hearing impairments “have been arrested and held in jail over night without ever know­