W. EUGENE DAVIS, Circuit Judge:
Stafford J. Coolbaugh, a paraplegic, filed this action against the State of Louisiana in federal court alleging that the State violated Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131-12165 (1994), by discriminating against him on the basis of his disability. The district court denied Coolbaugh’s motion for summary judgment and the jury eventually returned a verdict in favor of the State. Coolbaugh has appealed the district court’s denial of his summary judgment motion, as well as the take nothing judgment entered on the jury’s verdict. Before turning to the merits, we consider whether jurisdiction was proper. Specifically, we consider whether the ADA represents an appropriate Congressional exercise of its Section 5 enforcement power so a!s to override the State of Louisiana’s Eleventh Amendment immunity. In light of the Supreme Court’s decisions in Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44, 116 S.Ct. 1114, 134 L.Ed.2d 252 (1996), City of Boerne v. Flores, — U.S.-, 117 S.Ct. 2157, 138 L.Ed.2d 624 (1997), and City of Cleburne, Texas v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc., 473 U.S. 432, 105 S.Ct. 3249, 87 L.Ed.2d 313 (1985), we hold that the provisions of the ADA are enforceable against a state because the enactment of this legislation was a valid exercise of Congress’ Section 5 enforcement power, and for that reason does not infringe upon Louisiana’s rights under the Eleventh Amendment. On the merits, we find no error and affirm.
I.
Coolbaugh and his family moved to Louisiana in 1993 after living in California for many years. While he was a California resident, Coolbaugh received a driver’s license permitting him to operate a specially equipped, hand-controlled automobile. Coolbaugh’s testimony revealed that he had used his California license for identification purposes, but not to drive. Upon their arrival in Louisiana, Coolbaugh and his wife went to the local Office of Motor Vehicles to obtain Louisiana driver’s licenses.
Generally, a new Louisiana resident may obtain a Louisiana driver’s license by presenting a valid out-of-state license and passing an eye exam. Coolbaugh’s wife, who was not disabled, followed this procedure and obtained a Louisiana driver’s license. An employee of the Office of Motor Vehicles told Coolbaugh, however, that in addition to the usual requirements, he must complete a special medical form and pass a road test in his own hand-controlled vehicle. Although Cool-baugh’s doctor certified that Coolbaugh could safely drive a “handicapped controlled vehicle,” Coolbaugh failed to supply his own hand-controlled vehicle or otherwise to take and pass the required road test. As a result, Louisiana declined to issue Coolbaugh a Louisiana driver’s license.
Coolbaugh brought the current action against the State of Louisiana in federal court alleging that the State violated Title II of the ADA by treating him and his nondisa-bled wife differently with respect to the issuance of Louisiana driver’s licenses. The district court denied Coolbaugh’s motion for summary judgment, and the case proceeded to trial. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Louisiana, finding that the State had not discriminated against Coolbaugh on the basis of a disability. Coolbaugh appeals both the district court’s denial of his motion for summary judgment and the jury’s verdict.
II.
The Eleventh Amendment provides immunity to states from suits in federal court by private persons. The Eleventh Amendment states that:
The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit [433]*433in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by 'Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.
U.S. Const, amend. XI. The Supreme Court has broadly construed the Eleventh Amendment’s narrow language, to embrace the larger principle that a state is granted immunity from suits initiated by private entities or persons in federal court, if the state has not consented to such suits. Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44, 54, 116 S.Ct. 1114, 1122, 134 L.Ed.2d 252 (1996) (“[W]e have understood the Eleventh Amendment to stand not so much for what it says, but for the presupposition ... which it confirms.”) (quoting Blatchford v. Native Village of Noatak, 501 U.S. 775, 779, 111 S.Ct. 2578, 2581, 115 L.Ed.2d 686 (1991)).
Congress has the authority to abrogate states’ immunity in certain circumstances pursuant to Congress’ powers under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Section 5 provides that “Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.” U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 5. Among the provisions is Section 1’s mandate that
[n]o state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Id., § 1.
Seminole Tribe established a two-pronged test for determining the validity of Congress’ abrogation of state immunity through the exercise of its Section 5 enforcement power. First, a court must determine whether Congress “unequivocally expresse[d] its intent to abrogate the immunity.”’ Seminole Tribe, 517 U.S. at 55, 116 S.Ct. at 1123 (quoting Green v. Mansour, 474 U.S. 64, 68, 106 S.Ct. 423, 426, 88 L.Ed.2d 371 (1985)). Second, a court must determine whether Congress acted “pursuant to a valid exercise of power.” Id. (quoting Green, 474 U.S. at 68, 106 S.Ct. at 425-26).
The first prong — Congress’ intent to abrogate state immunity — is patently clear in the ADA. Section 12202 of the ADA provides that “[a] State shall not be immune under the eleventh amendment [sic] to the Constitution of the United States from an action in Federal or State court of competent jurisdiction for a violation of this chapter.” 42 -U.S:C. § 12202. See also Clark v. California, 123 F.3d 1267, 1269 (9th Cir.1997) (finding that in the ADA, Congress “unequivocally expressed its intent to abrogate the State’s immunity”).
The second prong — whether Congress has abrogated state immunity in the ADA through a valid exercise of its enforcement power — is less clear. The Constitution allows Congress to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Supreme Court held in City of Cleburne, Texas v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc. that disabled persons are protected by the Equal Protection Clause.1 473 [434]*434U.S. 432, 450, 105 S.Ct. 3249, 3259-60, 87 L.Ed.2d 313 (1985).
In Cleburne, the City of Cleburne denied a special use permit to a proposed operator of a group home for the mentally retarded. Id. at 435-37, 105 S.Ct. at 3251-53.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
W. EUGENE DAVIS, Circuit Judge:
Stafford J. Coolbaugh, a paraplegic, filed this action against the State of Louisiana in federal court alleging that the State violated Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131-12165 (1994), by discriminating against him on the basis of his disability. The district court denied Coolbaugh’s motion for summary judgment and the jury eventually returned a verdict in favor of the State. Coolbaugh has appealed the district court’s denial of his summary judgment motion, as well as the take nothing judgment entered on the jury’s verdict. Before turning to the merits, we consider whether jurisdiction was proper. Specifically, we consider whether the ADA represents an appropriate Congressional exercise of its Section 5 enforcement power so a!s to override the State of Louisiana’s Eleventh Amendment immunity. In light of the Supreme Court’s decisions in Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44, 116 S.Ct. 1114, 134 L.Ed.2d 252 (1996), City of Boerne v. Flores, — U.S.-, 117 S.Ct. 2157, 138 L.Ed.2d 624 (1997), and City of Cleburne, Texas v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc., 473 U.S. 432, 105 S.Ct. 3249, 87 L.Ed.2d 313 (1985), we hold that the provisions of the ADA are enforceable against a state because the enactment of this legislation was a valid exercise of Congress’ Section 5 enforcement power, and for that reason does not infringe upon Louisiana’s rights under the Eleventh Amendment. On the merits, we find no error and affirm.
I.
Coolbaugh and his family moved to Louisiana in 1993 after living in California for many years. While he was a California resident, Coolbaugh received a driver’s license permitting him to operate a specially equipped, hand-controlled automobile. Coolbaugh’s testimony revealed that he had used his California license for identification purposes, but not to drive. Upon their arrival in Louisiana, Coolbaugh and his wife went to the local Office of Motor Vehicles to obtain Louisiana driver’s licenses.
Generally, a new Louisiana resident may obtain a Louisiana driver’s license by presenting a valid out-of-state license and passing an eye exam. Coolbaugh’s wife, who was not disabled, followed this procedure and obtained a Louisiana driver’s license. An employee of the Office of Motor Vehicles told Coolbaugh, however, that in addition to the usual requirements, he must complete a special medical form and pass a road test in his own hand-controlled vehicle. Although Cool-baugh’s doctor certified that Coolbaugh could safely drive a “handicapped controlled vehicle,” Coolbaugh failed to supply his own hand-controlled vehicle or otherwise to take and pass the required road test. As a result, Louisiana declined to issue Coolbaugh a Louisiana driver’s license.
Coolbaugh brought the current action against the State of Louisiana in federal court alleging that the State violated Title II of the ADA by treating him and his nondisa-bled wife differently with respect to the issuance of Louisiana driver’s licenses. The district court denied Coolbaugh’s motion for summary judgment, and the case proceeded to trial. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Louisiana, finding that the State had not discriminated against Coolbaugh on the basis of a disability. Coolbaugh appeals both the district court’s denial of his motion for summary judgment and the jury’s verdict.
II.
The Eleventh Amendment provides immunity to states from suits in federal court by private persons. The Eleventh Amendment states that:
The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit [433]*433in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by 'Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.
U.S. Const, amend. XI. The Supreme Court has broadly construed the Eleventh Amendment’s narrow language, to embrace the larger principle that a state is granted immunity from suits initiated by private entities or persons in federal court, if the state has not consented to such suits. Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44, 54, 116 S.Ct. 1114, 1122, 134 L.Ed.2d 252 (1996) (“[W]e have understood the Eleventh Amendment to stand not so much for what it says, but for the presupposition ... which it confirms.”) (quoting Blatchford v. Native Village of Noatak, 501 U.S. 775, 779, 111 S.Ct. 2578, 2581, 115 L.Ed.2d 686 (1991)).
Congress has the authority to abrogate states’ immunity in certain circumstances pursuant to Congress’ powers under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Section 5 provides that “Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.” U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 5. Among the provisions is Section 1’s mandate that
[n]o state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Id., § 1.
Seminole Tribe established a two-pronged test for determining the validity of Congress’ abrogation of state immunity through the exercise of its Section 5 enforcement power. First, a court must determine whether Congress “unequivocally expresse[d] its intent to abrogate the immunity.”’ Seminole Tribe, 517 U.S. at 55, 116 S.Ct. at 1123 (quoting Green v. Mansour, 474 U.S. 64, 68, 106 S.Ct. 423, 426, 88 L.Ed.2d 371 (1985)). Second, a court must determine whether Congress acted “pursuant to a valid exercise of power.” Id. (quoting Green, 474 U.S. at 68, 106 S.Ct. at 425-26).
The first prong — Congress’ intent to abrogate state immunity — is patently clear in the ADA. Section 12202 of the ADA provides that “[a] State shall not be immune under the eleventh amendment [sic] to the Constitution of the United States from an action in Federal or State court of competent jurisdiction for a violation of this chapter.” 42 -U.S:C. § 12202. See also Clark v. California, 123 F.3d 1267, 1269 (9th Cir.1997) (finding that in the ADA, Congress “unequivocally expressed its intent to abrogate the State’s immunity”).
The second prong — whether Congress has abrogated state immunity in the ADA through a valid exercise of its enforcement power — is less clear. The Constitution allows Congress to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Supreme Court held in City of Cleburne, Texas v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc. that disabled persons are protected by the Equal Protection Clause.1 473 [434]*434U.S. 432, 450, 105 S.Ct. 3249, 3259-60, 87 L.Ed.2d 313 (1985).
In Cleburne, the City of Cleburne denied a special use permit to a proposed operator of a group home for the mentally retarded. Id. at 435-37, 105 S.Ct. at 3251-53. The plaintiffs challenged the denial, arguing that the zoning ordinance requiring a permit violated the equal protection rights of the mentally retarded. Id. at 437, 105 S.Ct. at 3252-53. The Supreme Court held that “legislation that distinguishes between the mentally retarded and others must be rationally related to a legitimate governmental purpose.” Id. at 446, 105 S.Ct. at 3257.
Thus, applying Cleburne, the disabled are protected by the Equal Protection Clause and Congress is entitled to enforce this protection against the states despite the Eleventh Amendment. The Court last term, however, in City of Boerne v. Flores, declared that Congress’ power in this respect is not unlimited. — U.S. -, 117 S.Ct. 2157, 138 L.Ed.2d 624 (1997).
Flores arose out of the City of Boerne’s rejection of the Archbishop of San Antonio’s permit application to enlarge a historically significant church. Id. at-, 117 S.Ct. at 2160. The Archbishop brought an action claiming, among other things, that rejection of the permit violated The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (“RFRA”). 107 Stat. 1488 (codified at 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000bb to 2000bb-4 (1994)). The Court held that RFRA, legislation passed pursuant to Congress’ enforcement power under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, was unconstitutional because it exceeded Congress’ enforcement power. Flores, — U.S. at-, 117 S.Ct. at 2172.
The Flores Court declared that “§ 5 is ‘a positive grant of legislative power’ to Congress.” Id. at-, 117 S.Ct. at 2163 (quoting Katzenbach v. Morgan, 384 U.S. 641, 651, 86 S.Ct. 1717, 1723, 16 L.Ed.2d 828 (1966)). The Flores Court restated its longstanding view that
[wjhatever legislation is appropriate, that .is, adapted to carry out the objects the amendments have in view, whatever tends to enforce submission to the prohibitions they contain, and to secure to all persons the enjoyment of perfect equality of civil rights and the equal protection of the laws against State denial or invasion, if not prohibited, is brought within the domain of congressional power.
Id. at -, 117 S.Ct. at 2163 (quoting Ex parte Virginia, 100 U.S. 339, 345-46, 25 L.Ed. 676 (1879)). The Flores Court affirmed the historical principle that Congress has the authority to both remedy and prevent constitutional violations. Id. at -, 117 S.Ct. at 2164-67. In addition, the Court restated its historical view that
[^legislation which deters or remedies constitutional violations can fall within the sweep of Congress’ enforcement power even if in the process it prohibits conduct which is not itself unconstitutional and intrudes into ‘legislative spheres of autonomy previously reserved to the States.’
Id. at-, 117 S.Ct. at 2163 (quoting Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U.S. 445, 455, 96 S.Ct. 2666, 2671, 49 L.Ed.2d 614 (1976)). In contrast to its affirmation of Congress’ Section 5 powers, the Court was clear in its mandate that Congress may not “determine what constitutes a constitutional violation.” Id. at -, 117 S.Ct. at 2164.
The Flores Court explained Congress’ Section 5 authority to adopt legislation that remedies or prevents constitutional violations by reciting examples from earlier cases. Id. at -, 117 S.Ct. at 2166-67. For example, the Supreme Court “upheld a suspension of literacy tests and similar voting requirements under Congress’ parallel power to enforce the provisions of the Fifteenth Amendment ... to combat racial discrimination in voting.” Id. at-, 117 S.Ct. at 2163 (citing South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301, 308, 86 S.Ct. 803, 808, 15 L.Ed.2d 769 (1966)) (citation omitted). The Court upheld this legislation to prevent violations despite its earlier decision upholding the eonstitutionali[435]*435ty of the literacy tests in Lassiter v. Northampton County Bd. of Elections, 360 U.S. 45, 79 S.Ct. 985, 3 L.Ed.2d 1072 (1959). The Supreme Court has “also concluded that other measures protecting voting rights are within Congress’ power to enforce the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, despite the burdens those measures placed on .the States.” Flores, — U.S. at -—, 117 S.Ct. at 2163.
In Flores, the Court stated that “the line between measures that remedy or prevent unconstitutional actions and measures that make a substantive change in the governing law is not easy to discern, and Congress must have wide latitude, in determining where it lies.” .Id. at-, 117 S.Ct. at 2164. The Court held that to be á valid exercise of power under Section 5, “[tjhere must be a congruence and proportionality between the injury to be prevented or remedied and the means adopted to that end.” Id. (emphasis added). As guidance to applying this test, the Court stated that “[tjhe appropriateness of remedial measures must be considered in light of the evil presented.” Id. at-, 117 S.Ct. at 2169 (citation omitted).
In summary, the Supreme Court has instructed us that Congress is authorized to adopt legislation that remedies or prevents unconstitutional conduct, provided there is a “congruence and proportionality between the injury to be prevented or remedied and the means adopted to that end.” Id. at--, 117 S.Ct. at 2164. This proportionality inquiry has two primary facets: the extent 'of the threatened constitutional violations, and the scope of the steps provided in the legislation to remedy or prevent such violations.
In making our proportionality review, as Flores directs, we must consider the ADA’s scope in light of the evil it addresses. We first turn to findings in the ADA where Congress detailed its understanding of the extent of the evil it was addressing—discrimination against the disabled.2
(1)some 43,000,000 Americans have one or more physical or mental disabilities, and this number is increasing as the population as a whole is growing older;
(2) historically, society has tended to isolate and segregate individuals with disabilities, and, despite some improvements, such forms of discrimination against individuals with disabilities continue to be a serious and pervasive social problem;
(3) discrimination against individuals with disabilities persists in such critical areas as -employment, housing, public - accommodations, education, transportation, communication, recreation, institutionalization, health services, voting, and access to public services;
(4) unlike individuals who have experienced discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex, national origin, religion, or age, individuals who have experienced discrimination on the basis of disability have often had no legal recourse to redress such discrimination;
(5) individuals with disabilities continually encounter various forms of discrimination, -including outright intentional exclusion, the -discriminatory effects of architectural, transportation, and communication barriers, overprotective rules and policies, failure to make modifications to existing facilities and practices, exclusionary qualification standards and criteria, segregation, and relegation to lesser services, programs, activities, benefits, jobs, or other opportunities;
(6) census data, national polls, and other studies have documented that people with disabilities, as a group, occupy an inferior status in our society, and are .severely disadvantaged socially, vocationally, economically, and educationally.3
42 U.S.C. § 12101(a) (1995).
We must give these congressional findings substantial deference. “In review[436]*436ing the constitutionality of a statute, ‘courts must accord substantial deference to the predictive judgments of Congress.’ ” Turner Broad. Sys., Inc. v. FCC (Turner II), — U.S. -, -, 117 S.Ct. 1174, 1189, 137 L.Ed.2d 369 (1997) (quoting Turner Broad. Sys., Inc. v. FCC (Turner I), 512 U.S. 622, 665, 114 S.Ct. 2445, 2471, 129 L.Ed.2d 497 (1994) (Kennedy, J. Op.)).
The Court in Flores reaffirmed this bedrock principle when it stated that “[i]t is for Congress in the first instance to ‘determin[e] whether and what legislation is needed to secure the guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment,’ and its conclusions are entitled to much deference.” — U.S. at-, 117 S.Ct. at 2172 (quoting Morgan, 384 U.S. at 651, 86 S.Ct. at 1723-24).
The Turner II Court instructs that the judiciary’s “sole obligation is ‘to assure that, in formulating its judgments, Congress has drawn reasonable inferences based on substantial evidence.’” — U.S. at -, 117 S.Ct. at 1189 (quoting Turner I, 512 U.S. at 666, 114 S.Ct. at 2471 (Kennedy, J. Op.)).
Deference to the judgment of Congress is particularly appropriate in this ease, because in Cleburne, the Court identified Congress as the ideal governmental branch to make findings and decisions regarding the legal treatment of the disabled. 473 U.S. at 442-43, 105 S.Ct. at 3255-56. In Cleburne, the Court stated: “How this large and diversified group is to be treated under the law is a difficult and often a technical matter, very much a task for legislators guided by qualified professionals and not by the perhaps ill-informed opinions of the judiciary.” Id.
Before enacting the ADA, Congress considered a wide range of evidence and made findings. Both the House and the Senate cited seven substantive studies or reports to support its conclusion that discrimination against the disabled is a serious and pervasive problem. S.Rep. No. 101-116, at 6 (1989); H.R.Rep. No. 101-485, pt. 2, at 28, U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1990, 267, 309-10 (1990) (Both citing National Council on the Handicapped, On the Threshold of Independence (Jan.1988) (updating the legislative changes recommended in Toward Independence)-, Report of the Presidential Commission on the Human Immunodeficiency Virus Epidemic (June 1988) (reviewing the medical, financial, ethical, policy, and legal issues that affect those afflicted with HIV); Louis Harris and Associates, The ICD (International Center for the Disabled) Survey II: Employing Disabled Americans (1987) (surveying 210 top managers, 301 equal employment managers, 210 department heads and line managers, and 200 top managers in companies employing 10-49 people); Louis Harris and Associates, The ICD (International Center for the Disabled) Survey of Disabled Americans: Bringing Disabled Americans into the Mainstream (March 1986) (surveying 1000 disabled persons); National Council on the Handicapped, Toward Independence (Feb.1986) (reviewing different iaws and programs that affect disabled persons and offering recommendations for legislative changes); U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Accommodating the Spectrum of Individual Abilities (Sept.1983) (reporting on, among other things, the history, nature, and extent of discrimination against the disabled); From ADA to Empowerment: The Report of the Task Force on the Rights and Empowerment of Americans .with Disabilities (Oct. 12, 1990) (compiling findings and recommendations following the formation of a Task Force, which conducted 14 Washington, D.C., teleconference meetings with participants [437]*437from across the country, held 63 public forums in the 50 states and some territories, held other meetings involving 25,000 participants, testified in congressional hearings, met with legislative and executive staff members, met with the President, Vice President and various Cabinet members, and met with opponents of the ADA)). The legislative history also includes a wealth of testimonial and anecdotal evidence from a spectrum of parties to support the finding of serious and pervasive discrimination.4
We are satisfied that the extensive record compiled in the legislative history fully supports Congress’ detailed findings of a serious and pervasive problem of discrimination against the disabled. As stated above, these findings are entitled to deference. Because Congress found a significant likelihood of unconstitutional actions and therefore a significant “evil” to be addressed, the only remaining inquiry is whether the scope of the ADA is so “sweeping” that the statute cannot be seen as proportional to the evil Congress sought to address.
We are persuaded that Congress’ scheme in the ADA to provide a remedy to the disabled who suffer discrimination and to prevent such discrimination is not so draconian or overly sweeping to be considered disproportionate to the serious threat of discrimination Congress perceived. The ADA first sets forth broad provisions. generally outlawing discrimination.5 In addition to these general provisions outlawing discrimination, Congress made specific judgments in particular circumstances as to what it perceived to be reasonable and appropriate to prevent unconstitutional discrimination. For example, in Title I, 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(5)(A) declares it discriminatory to reject an employee whose mental or physical limitation may be reasonably accommodated, so long as such accommodation does not cause undue burden; § 12112(d) declares it discriminatory to subject a potential employee to medical examinations or inquiries; and § 12113 provides a defense to an entity that refuses employment to a disabled person when the refusal is “job-related and consistent with business necessity.” Included in the' provisions of Title II is 42 U.S.C. § 12142(a), which requires entities that purchase or renovate new buses or rail vehicles to ensure that such new or renovated vehicles be accessible to the disabled,' and 42 U.S.C. § 12148(b), which requires that at least one car per train is accessible to the disabled. Congress made these particularized judgments after hearing testimony on the reasonableness and feasibility of these provisions. See, e.g., H.R.Rep. No. 101-485, pt. 2, at 44-45 (1990) (citing testimony that businesses will benefit from the ADA be[438]*438cause the.labor pool will improve); id. at 45 (citing employee expertise and performance benefits that accrue to corporations that make accommodations); id. (citing testimony from a former CEO of small and large companies, arguing that the ADA is affordable and is “good business”); id. at 46 (citing testimony regarding the Marriott Corporation’s success as a result of policies similar to those established in the ADA).
In sum, the ADA represents Congress’ considered efforts to remedy and prevent what it perceived as serious, widespread discrimination against the disabled. We recognize that in some instances, the provisions of the ADA will “prohibit[ ] conduct which is not itself unconstitutional and intrude[ ] into ‘legislative spheres of autonomy previously reserved to the States.’ ” Flores, — U.S. at -, 117 S.Ct. at 2163 (quoting Fitzpatrick, 427 U.S. at 455, 96 S.Ct. at 2671). We cannot say, however, in light of the extensive findings of unconstitutional discrimination made by Congress, that these remedies are too sweeping to survive the Flores proportionality test for legislation that provides a remedy for unconstitutional discrimination or prevents threatened unconstitutional actions.
In concluding that Congress did not exceed its Section 5 power in adopting the ADA, we join the only other circuit that has considered the issue since the Court decided Flores. In Clark, the Ninth Circuit upheld the constitutionality of the ADA as a proper exercise of Congress’ Section 5 power. 123 F.3d at 1270. The panel concluded that
“[i]n both acts, Congress explicitly found that persons with disabilities have suffered discrimination. Both the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act therefore are within the scope of appropriate legislation under the Equal Protection Clause as defined by the Supreme Court. At the same time, neither act provides remedies so sweeping that they exceed the harms that they are designed to redress.”
Id. For these reasons, the Ninth Circuit concluded that “both the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act were validly enacted under the Fourteenth Amendment.” Id.
Congress’ inclusion of detailed findings in the ADA is an important distinguishing feature between this case and Flores. In contrast to the extensive findings Congress made in the ADA, Congress made no findings in RFRA of widespread unconstitutional treatment of religious persons. Indeed, the Flores Court concluded that “the emphasis of the hearings [related to RFRA] was on laws of general applicability which place incidental burdens on religion.” Flores, — U.S. at -, 117 S.Ct. at 2169. The detailed factual findings in the ADA, which require our deference, are critical to the application of the Flores proportionality review.
Also, we are convinced that the threat posed by RFRA to our principles of separation of powers is not similarly posed by the ADA. In the ADA, Congress included no language attempting to upset the balance of powers and usurp the Court’s function of establishing a standard of review by establishing a standard different from the one previously established by the Supreme Court. Congress performed one of its traditional legislative functions by finding facts relating to proposed legislation. The Supreme Court may in the future, if it chooses to do so, reconsider the Cleburne standard of review in light of the Congressional findings. However, this conflict is not a sufficient reason for us to invalidate the ADA.
The dissent seems to conclude that Congress does not have the power under § 5 to prohibit constitutional conduct. We disagree. The Flores court stated
[legislation which deters or remedies constitutional violations can fall within the sweep of Congress’ enforcement power even if in the process it prohibits conduct which is not itself unconstitutional and intrudes into ‘legislative spheres of autonomy previously reserved to the States.’
Id. at-, 117 S.Ct. at 2163 (quoting Fitzpatrick, 427 U.S. at 455, 96 S.Ct. at 2671).
We therefore hold that the ADA represents a proper exercise of Congress’ Section 5 enforcement power under the Fourteenth Amendment. As a result, Louisiana is not entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity from suits brought pursuant to the ADA.
[439]*439III.
We now turn to the merits. The record fully supports the jury’s finding that the state did not discriminate against Mr. Coolbaugh, who was a paraplegic, by requiring that he demonstrate his ability to drive on the state’s roadways by taking a driving test. A number of plausible explanations may be offered for the verdict. Perhaps the clearest one that is fully supported by the evidence is that the state’s refusal to issue Mr. Coolbaugh a driver’s license based on his possession of a California license was not motivated, even in part, by its desire to discriminate against him because of his disability. Rather, its decision was motivated by a desire to protect the public oh the state’s highways. Mr. Coolbaugh’s argument that, absent discrimination, the state would have accepted his California driver’s license as sufficient evidence of his ability to drive was particularly unpersuasive. The evidence revealed that though Coolbaugh held a valid California driver’s license, he had not actually driven a vehicle since obtaining his license, and had used the license only for identification purposes. Because the verdict is fully supported by the record and we find no reversible error, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.