Corra, M. K., (2026) “The ADA at 35: Disabled Judicial Personnel and Access to the Courts”, Disability Studies Quarterly 45(3). doi: https://doi.org/10.18061/dsq.6370

Introduction

In 2004, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the constitutionality of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) "as it applies to the class of cases implicating the fundamental right of access to the courts “(541 U.S. 509, 531, 2004). In his majority opinion in Tennessee v. Lane, No. 02-1667, U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that Title II “seeks to enforce a variety of other basic constitutional guarantees, infringements of which are subject to more searching judicial review.” The opinion noted that these other guarantees included the right of access to courts protected by the due process clause of the 14th Amendment.

Thirty-five years after the passage of the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act, recent events have resurfaced the question of whether or not persons with disabilities in the United States have a fundamental right to access. Using access to courts as an example, this paper examines issues of accessibility from the perspectives of judicial personnel in light of the 35^th anniversary of the ADA. In doing so, it also provides a historical and legal foundation for the general notion of access to courts as a foundational aspect of U.S. constitutional democracy. A brief outline of current case law on disability and access to courts provides the now legal foundation to the historical underpinnings that are discussed.

Empirically, the article reports results from a recent study undertaken by the author as part of an American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) Science and Technology Policy Fellowship with the Federal Judicial Center in Washington D.C.¹ Established by Congress in 1967 (28 U.S.C. §§ 620-629), the Federal Judicial Center is the research and education wing of the judicial branch of the U.S. government. Results reported come from interviews with various judiciary employees, as well as individuals in the judicial and disability legal and research communities, that surveyed perspectives on issues of accessibility that are of concern to judicial personnel with disabilities: direct (official) employees of courts and those “officers of courts” who come to court for official business (e.g., attorneys and legal advocates). While many of the issues reported are specific to the U.S. judiciary, they should be of general import in a variety of organizational settings.

Key among the issues identified are (1) concerns about the underrepresentation of persons with disabilities, especially judges, in the judiciary; (2) limited knowledge and familiarity with the types of assistive technology available and how they can be used; (3) communication barriers for hard of hearing and/or deaf individuals; (4) difficulties in accessing written documents by persons with vision related issues; and (5) attitudinal impediments. The interviews also provided several suggestions, including (1) a process that leads to more nomination of qualified people with disabilities in judgeships; (2) continual judicial education on issues of accessibility; (3) the need for a uniform rule for how documents should be submitted; (4) a proactive approach to accessibility; and (5) the need for a centralized accessibility coordinator for advice, guidance, and recommendations. Reported results highlight issues from a variety of perspectives, emphasizing the inherent diversity in the disability community.

The section to immediately follow provides a historical foundation for the legal basis of access to courts, broadly speaking. This discussion is extended to access to courts as it relates to disability status. An outline of current case law on disability and access to courts is then provided, which examines the scope of the legal right to access to courts for persons with disabilities. I then introduce an empirical study that surveyed issues of access to courts from the perspectives of judicial personnel, and report research findings from this study. I conclude with practical and policy implications that can be drawn from these.

Historical and Legal Foundations for Access to Courts

While not discussed in the context of “disability rights,” Federal courts have long recognized the general notion of access to courts as a fundamental aspect² of U.S. constitutional democracy.³ As early as 1885 the U.S. Supreme Court declared that "[t]he Fourteenth Amendment … undoubtedly intended … that all persons . . . should have like access to the courts of the country for the protection of their persons and property, the prevention and redress of wrongs, and the enforcement of contracts…."⁴ In a concurring opinion in Talamini v. Allstate Insurance Company, Supreme Court Justice Stevens more recently observed that: “Freedom of access to the courts is a cherished value in our democratic society …. The courts provide the mechanism for the peaceful resolution of disputes that might otherwise give rise to attempts at self-help. There is, and should be, the strongest presumption of open access to all levels of the judicial system…. This Court, above all, should uphold the principle of open access.”⁵

Legal scholars have argued that the right of "meaningful access" to the judiciary for enforcement and defense of important rights is a product of the Anglo-American natural rights legal philosophy said to be foundational to our state and Federal constitutions.⁶ “Originating in the promises of Article 40 of the Magna Carta and affirmed by many states in their constitutions well-prior to the ratification of the Federal Constitution, an unfettered and meaningful right of access to the courts of the state was understood to be essential to the ability of the citizens to secure and defend their rights, liberties, and property.”⁷ On the heels of the drafting of the U.S. Constitution itself, Alexander Hamilton observed in Federalist Paper No. 78 that the purpose of the judicial branch is "to secure a steady, upright, and impartial administration of the laws."⁸

As forerunners to the U.S. Constitution, some of the earliest colonial documents and charters are cited⁹ to contain the principle of "open courts" and "justice without sale, denial, or delay."¹⁰ These principles later resurfaced in the "Declaration of Rights" sections of the original constitutions¹¹ of Delaware,¹² Maryland,¹³ North Carolina,¹⁴ Massachusetts,¹⁵ and New Hampshire.¹⁶ In the end, at least thirty-five states are cited as providing for access to courts in their constitutions.¹⁷

It is within this context that some legal scholars argue that the right to access to courts is such an integral part of the common law¹⁸ that the framers of our Federal Constitution perceived no need for explicitly guaranteeing it in the U.S. Constitution.¹⁹ Without an explicit expression in the Federal Constitution, courts have found the right to court access in the first amendment's "petition for redress of grievances" provision,²⁰ the fifth and fourteenth amendments' "due process of law" clauses,²¹ the sixth amendment's guarantee of the "right to a speedy and public trial,"²² the fourteenth amendment's "privileges and immunities" provision,²³ and the fourteenth amendment's "equal protection" clause.²⁴ Thus, in Wolff v. McDonald, the U.S. Supreme Court observed that: "the right of access to the courts …is founded in the Due Process clause and assures that no person will be denied the opportunity to present to the judiciary allegations concerning violations of fundamental constitutional rights."²⁵ In fact, the right to access to courts is “the right conservative of all other rights, and lies at the foundation of orderly government.”²⁶

Yet, the constitutionality of the right to access to courts has not been as clear cut as it might initially appear. Disagreement has existed among judges and legal scholars as to the existence of this right and its constitutional source. In Romer v. Evans, Supreme Court Justice Breyer observed that: “Central both to the idea of the rule of law and to our own Constitution's guarantee of equal protection is the principle that government and each of its parts remain open on impartial terms to all who seek its assistance.”²⁷ Justice Brennan located the right within the purview of the equal protection clause, while he and other Justices (Stewart and Marshall) situated it in the due process clause.²⁸ Justice Rehnquist, by contrast, found the "'fundamental constitutional right of access to the courts'…is found nowhere in the Constitution."²⁹ In fact, it is "created virtually out of whole cloth with little or no reference to the Constitution from which it is supposed to be derived."³⁰ According to Rehnquist: “A violation of due process occurs only when a person is actually denied the constitutional right to access a given judicial proceeding. We have never held that a person has a constitutional right to make his way into a courtroom without any external assistance. “³¹ Former Chief Justice Burger was similarly "unenlightened as to the source of the 'right of access to the courts'….”³²

With respect to persons with disabilities, however, many legal scholars have argued that access to justice is a fundamental right that cannot be achieved when people with disabilities are not accorded equal access to courts.³³ Yet, the notion of access to courts for persons with disabilities has historically remained elusive. As the U.S. Supreme Court observed in Tennessee v. Lane, the “unequal treatment of disabled persons in the administration of justice has a long history.”³⁴ Notably: “Although the Federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) aims to eradicate disability-based discrimination in a variety of settings, one threshold question is whether the courts themselves are sufficiently accessible to enable individuals with disabilities to enter courthouses and to participate in court proceedings.” (Udell and Diller, 2007, P. 1135).

Nevertheless, as discussed in the section to immediately follow, the current state of the law is that the right to access to courts is fundamental in its scope, i.e., the constitutionality of Title II of the ADA "as it applies to the class of cases implicating the fundamental right of access to the courts“ (541 U.S. 509, 531, 2004). That review of current case law on disability and access, albeit brief, provides the now legal foundation to the historical underpinnings discussed above. It also offers the legal and policy context for the empirical results reported later in the paper. The study providing such results is introduced, and its findings reported. The paper concludes with practical and policy implications of the reported findings.

Current U.S. Case Law

U.S. Federal law requires that government programs and activities do not discriminate against, and be equally accessible to, persons with disabilities. Two main Federal anti-discrimination statutes provide legal foundation for such nondiscrimination and equal access. The 1973 Rehabilitation Act provided the earliest legal protection via its Section 504 nondiscrimination mandate for programs and activities that receive Federal funds³⁵. While using section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act as a foundation, the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) widened the scope of Section 504³⁶. This section provides an overview of these and other Federal disability laws providing protection for persons with disabilities.

The 1973 Rehabilitation Act was the first main U.S. law that attempted to provide legal foundation for nondiscrimination and equal access for persons with disabilities. Since 1973, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act has provided statutory protections for persons with disabilities in a wide range of domains. Its anti-discrimination mandate declared that: “No otherwise qualified individual with a disability in the United States…, shall, solely by reason of her or his disability, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance or under any program or activity conducted by any Executive agency or by the United States Postal Service.”³⁷.

A key controlling phrase in this legal mandate is “any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” That is to say, the Section 504 anti-discrimination mandate specifically applies to any program or activity receiving Federal financial support³⁸.

Discrimination on the basis of disability is specifically prohibited in these programs and activities. U.S. Section 504 Federal agency regulations, for example, generally require:

• “Reasonable” accommodations for employment and employment related activities.

• Programs and activities that are fully accessible.

• Mechanisms for effective communication with people who have hearing, vision, or speech disabilities.

• Accessible physical infrastructures (e.g., new and altered buildings).

For states and local governments, relevant here is that the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987³⁹ amended various civil rights statutes, including section 504, by defining the term “program or activity” to mean “all of the operations of ... a department, agency ... or other instrumentality of a State or of a local government."⁴⁰ By Federal regulations implementing Section 504, all such programs and activities are required to “evaluate and modify [their] policies and practices that do not meet the [nondiscrimination] requirements.”⁴¹

While using section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act as a foundation, the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) widened the scope of that section. As entities providing “public service," courts generally fall within the purview of Title II of the ADA. Title II of the ADA extends the scope of section 504 provisions to include government entities that do not receive Federal financial assistance. And like section 504, the definition of a “public entity” delimits the scope of Title II of the ADA to state and local entities. “Public entities” include “(A) any state or local government; (B) any department, agency, special purpose district, or other instrumentality of a state or states or local government.”⁴²

Here, I note a crucial irony characteristic of the current state of the law: “Ironically, litigants with disabilities in Federal courts have fewer court access rights than litigants in state and local courts. This is because the ADA and section 504 are Federal laws that do not apply to the Federal court system.” (Charmatz and McRae 2003, P. 340). Importantly, while the foregoing quotation highlights the irony in litigants with disabilities in Federal courts legally having fewer court access rights than litigants in state and local courts, Federal judiciary personnel/employees are similarly disadvantaged (Corra 2029, 2020, 2022). Notably, a recent review⁴³ of Federal statutory and regulatory provisions of access to courts found a broad scope of applicability of legal mandates to state and local courts that do not apply to the Federal judiciary. Again, this point is important in light of recent debates on the question of access as a fundamental right.

Though accessibility laws such as the ADA and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 do not apply to the Federal judiciary, Corra’s (2019) review⁴⁴ found that three specific sets of statutory provisions delimited to a specific set of accessibility issues apply to Federal courts. The Court Interpreters Act of 1978⁴⁵ governs access to Federal courts for deaf, hard-of-hearing, and speech impaired individuals.⁴⁶ Whereas the Architectural Barriers Act of 1968,⁴⁷ mandates removal of architectural and communication barriers in buildings and facilities (including all state, local and Federal court facilities) that are constructed or altered with Federal funds. Finally, the Federal Courts Improvement Act of 2000⁴⁸ gives the judiciary the authority to use appropriated funds to hire personal assistants for judges and judicial employees with disabilities.

More generally, instead of legal statutes, the Federal judiciary relies on judicial policy adopted by the Judicial Conference of the United States.⁴⁹ The “Guide to Judicial Policy” provides the official guidelines of the Judicial Conference of the United States for the administration and operation of the Federal judiciary. The rules and policies adopted by the Judicial Conference effectively have the force of positive law and are binding on Federal courts and court personnel.

A recent review⁵⁰ of relevant portions of such policy shows the Judicial Conference to be on record for recognizing equal employment and access.⁵¹ Yet, as with statutory provisions applicable to the Federal judiciary, Judicial Conference policy statements on disability and access are found to be sharply demarcated to a specific set of accessibility issues, i.e., communication and employment.

Thus, following 28 U.S.C. § 1827, Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 5, Ch. 2, § 255, “Services to the Hearing Impaired and Others with Communication Disabilities,” provides in part:

§ 255.10 General Policy

1. As adopted in September 1995, it is the policy of the Judicial Conference that all Federal courts provide reasonable accommodations to persons with communications disabilities (JCUS-SEP 95, p. 75). This policy provides for services in addition to those required by the Court Interpreters Act (28 U.S.C. § 1827).

2. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1827(l), a judge may provide a sign language interpreter for a party, witness or other participant in a judicial proceeding, whether or not the proceeding is instituted by the United States.

3. Under Judicial Conference policy, a court must provide sign language interpreters or other auxiliary aides and services to participants in Federal court proceedings who are deaf, hearing-impaired or have communication disabilities and may provide these services to spectators when deemed appropriate.

Similarly, following 5 U.S.C. § 3102, Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 12, Ch. 2, § 260, “Personal Assistants for Individuals with a Disability,” provides in part:⁵²

“The Judicial Conference has adopted policy to implement reasonable accommodation for its judicial officers and employees with a disability, including, where appropriate, personal assistants, such as a reader to accommodate the needs of a blind individual or an interpreter for a person who is hearing impaired and uses sign language. JCUS-MAR 98, p. 23; JCUS-MAR 01, pp. 18-19, 25-26. This authority is now set forth expressly in 5 U.S.C. § 3102.”

In sum, two implications are directly apparent from the foregoing discussion. First, state and local courts are mandated by Federal law to provide access to persons with disabilities in a wide range of domains. By contrast, a more limited number of statutes directly apply to Federal courts. Instead, Federal courts are guided by internal judiciary policy. And a review of these policies revealed that they are delimited to two specific areas, i.e., “communication disabilities” and accommodations in employment settings. Again, the state-Federal distinction is important in light of the current public discourse on whether or not providing access for persons with disabilities is a fundamental right. The section to immediately follow introduces an empirical study that surveyed court access from the perspectives of judicial personnel with disabilities.

Accessibility of Courts: Perspectives from Judicial Personnel with Disabilities

This section reports findings from interviews with some relevant stakeholders that surveyed perspectives on accessibility of courts. That is, from the perspective of the judiciary—those who interpret the applicability of statutes mandating access to courts for persons with disabilities, as well as “officers of the court” that come to such courts to participate in judicial proceedings. While legal analyses of the 2004 Supreme Court opinion noted above continue to surface, few have examined the accessibility of courts from the perspectives of judicial personnel. That is, when the rubber actually meets the road.

Reported interviews include judges (Federal and state), scholars in the disability research community, U.S. attorneys, and disability rights and other attorneys. Results of the in-depth interviews reported below generally focused on inquiring about personal experiences and provide a rich array of information.

Description of Research

Specifically, results from interviews with individuals with disabilities serving as judicial personnel reported in this section represent three main categories of disability: physical impediment, visual impairment, and hard of hearing and/or deafness⁵³. Additional interviewees included personnel that work/have worked with these, as well as members of the legal profession in the area of disability rights/advocacy/research. Interviewees also included individuals in the disability research community.

Initial contact (by email/phone) with organizations like the American Bar Association's Commission on Disability Rights, the Federal Bar Association, the National Association of the Deaf Law and Advocacy Center, the National Federation of the Blind, and Disability Rights Advocates, helped generate an initial list of possible interviewees. A snowball method was then used, wherein additional interviewees were obtained from those already interviewed. It was during these initial communications that interviewees were briefed on the research and consent to participate was solicited and confirmed via email. The research protocol was reviewed and approved by designated staff. The interviews were conducted in-person, by phone and/or email.

In total, discussions and communications with 20 individuals informed the findings and conclusions reported in this paper. My interviews with a Senior Judge with one of the U.S. Federal district courts, his two law clerks and Case Manager provided valuable insights into accessibility issues from the perspective of a Federal district judge. The judge also provided a list of additional contacts that came to be most useful. These include three lawyers and a court reporter, all with the United States Attorney's Office for the same U.S. district court. The judge is visually impaired, and these individuals either made arguments before his court, or have worked with him on accessibility issues. One of these individuals provided leads to an attorney that was then a Fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers and member of the CJA panel, who also worked on issues of disability and access to courts.

Additional judges interviewed included two at the state level, one of whom is with the Court of Appeals of a western state, and the other is a retired judge of the court of appeals for a midwestern state. The first of these has a speech and physical impediment, and the second is deaf/hard-of-hearing.

Further information on accessibility issues associated with the deaf/hard-of-hearing came from two sources with a major U.S. association of the Deaf. One of these was an attorney with the Law and Advocacy Center of this organization, whereas the second was a senior officer associated with the organization’s Legal Services unit. The former of these provided insights on accessibility issues for the deaf and hard-of-hearing, as these relate with Federal courtroom access for both litigants and attorneys, and the latter helped clarify issues of representation of judges at both the Federal and state levels.

The remaining seven individuals came from the legal and disability research communities, who took valuable time to speak with me and respond to my many emails. These include a Staff Attorney with a disability Rights advocacy law office; a member of the ABA Commission on Disability Rights (CDR); a former blind special counsel for two U.S. Federal agencies; a legal program coordinator with a major association of the blind in the United States; a former blind Staff Attorney with the Court of Appeals for one of the U.S. circuit courts; an international disability rights advocate, herself physically disabled; and a Professor with expertise in accessible technology. When needed to accentuate a point, direct quotes from some of these are provided throughout the text.

Summary of Results

At the outset, I note here that a consensus from interviews of judicial personnel (employees and officers of courts) with disabilities is that they enjoy an overall welcoming and accommodating working environment, with coworkers and colleagues who are very helpful. In general, interviewees reported the judiciary to be a highly accommodating work environment. A previous staff attorney with a visual impairment, who worked with one of the U.S. circuit courts, for example, had “no issue whatsoever” with co-workers and colleagues. This interviewee reported that, in fact, everyone that he had worked with in the Federal judiciary were very accommodating and ready to offer assistance when asked. A state judge with a physical and speech disability similarly noted that he experiences little or no “physical barriers.” This judge noted that court access was previously improved for an earlier judge, and that automatic doors were retrofitted to accommodate his needs. Moreover, he found the restrooms at work to be fully accessible.

Several interviewees more generally found courts and court officials to be very open to accessibility accommodations. A state judge interviewee, for example, noted that his “experience has been that most judges are very understanding of the need for accessibility accommodations and will do whatever they can to make sure they are provided in the courtroom—given enough notice beforehand.” Nevertheless, “there are always a few judges out there who are resistant.” This judge found providing accommodations to persons with disabilities “a problem more in the state courts than the Federal courts.” But he has “heard of a couple of Federal judges who are not on board.”

Yet, the interviews also revealed some key issues, including:

• Underrepresentation of persons with disabilities, especially judges, in the judiciary.

• Limited knowledge and familiarity with the types of assistive technology available and how they can be used(see Appendix 3).

• Machine-unreadable hand-written (and/or scanned) submissions.

• Communication barriers for hard of hearing and/or deaf individuals.

• Issues related with sound and lighting.

• Distance between participants in judicial proceedings.

• Physical barriers between participants in judicial proceedings.

• the captioning of oral arguments in Federal appeals courts posted online.

• Interpreters to hard of hearing/deaf spectators.

• Interpreting issues outside the court, e.g., mediation/settlement situations, court mandated programs (e.g., court mandated alcohol rehabilitation classes).

• Assessment of interpreting costs, i.e., 28 U.S.C. 1920: the assessment of cost to a losing party (see below).

• Access to some ECF (Electronic Case Filing) documents⁵⁴.

• Optical Character Recognition (OCR) of transmittals (e.g., AO [Administrative Office of U.S. Courts] Transmittals on Ethics and Judicial Conduct) to judicial personnel with visual impairments.

• Inaccessible documents submitted by parties (e.g., attorneys or litigants) during the filing process.

• Need for some uniformity in flooring/architecture, with a more focus on usage than aesthetic appeal.

• Attitudinal impediments.

In short, barriers to access are noted as varied as the types of disabilities individuals have. The interviewees made several suggestions for improvement. These suggestions include:

• A process that leads to more nomination of qualified people with disabilities in judgeships.

• A proactive approach to accessibility.

• Having an accessibility coordinator central in the judiciary that one could talk to for advice, guidance, and recommendations.

• Proposing that the U.S. Judicial Conference establish a committee on accessibility or incorporate issues of access as part of the tasks of one of its existing committees.

• Courts adopting a uniform rule for how documents should be submitted (See the example given below).

• Continual judicial education on issues of accessibility.

The rest of this article details each of these two areas in turn. I first discuss some of the key issues that came out of the interviews.⁵⁵ This discussion is extended to key suggestions from the interviews. I conclude with practical and policy implications of the findings.

Major Issues

1. Communication barriers for hard of hearing and/or deaf individuals.

This was a recurring theme across several interviewees. That is, “the ability to understand communication.” A hearing-impaired judge interviewee saw this as “the major impediment.” This judge added that this “is especially important for judges because they must understand everything that is said in court.”

A judge with a hearing impairment, for example, observed that “captioning or ASL is a must for a deaf judge.” Yet, this interviewee hastened to add that he knows that “the concern will be that the judge is only looking at the screen or the interpreter and will miss out on everything else that is occurring in the courtroom, things that help a judge determine demeanor, for example.” In this judge’s opinion, however, “deaf and hard of hearing people have learned to be multi-taskers in these situations. No doubt, the judge should be adept at looking at the courtroom and the captioning or ASL at the same time. This is quickly learned in my opinion. I used captioning and was still able to keep my eye on everything that was going on.”

Importantly, captioning of material was an issue that came up with several interviewees. One disability rights attorney and advocate, for example, observed that oral arguments of Federal appeals courts that are posted online are not captioned. According to this interviewee, these arguments are only in audio form, which makes it impossible for deaf and/or hard of hearing court officers and interested parties to review. This interviewee also found providing spectators with interpreters to remain an issue.

A judge interviewee with a hearing impairment more generally offered several areas that he saw as impediments to communication for deaf and/or hard of hearing individuals. These include the sound and lighting of courtrooms, distance between participants in judicial proceedings, and physical barriers between participants in judicial proceedings. With respect to sound, for example, this judge observed that: “Marble or slate floors and high ceilings provide poor sound. Sounds echo with tall ceilings. The courtrooms should be carpeted, the ceilings low, soundproof the walls to keep out echoes.” Moreover: “It’s hard to speech-read (lip read) with poor lighting. The lighting should be easy on the eyes.” So that: “It is easier to hear and speech-read close up than far away. Counsel tables should be closer to the bench and the witness box should be in a place where it is easy to see the witness.” Finally, with respect to physical barriers between participants in judicial proceedings, this interviewee observed that there should be less distance. As he put it: “the wooden barrier forming the [witness] “box” is too high. Many courtrooms, especially the older ones, have an actual “box.”  They are usually four sided, with an opening for ingress and egress. The box is made of wood, usually, and it is the height of the wood that is of concern. Some of these wooden boxes are so high that the judge’s vision of the witness is impaired, depending on the witness.” He added that he has “been in courtrooms where the witness box was so high, the judge could hardly see the witness from the bench.”

This judge interviewee was certain that all these communication impediments can be easily remedied. He observed that having a court reporter who captions would go a long way toward solving the ability to understand communication. He added that: “Having a top notch ASL interpreter would do the same for those who sign. Infrared and loops in the courtroom for the hard of hearing judge would be great and certainly doable. Carpet the floor, bring the tables and bench closer together, remove the physical barriers that hinder eyesight and get a special soundproof wall—the same kind used by symphony orchestras, and the judge is in business.”

A noted disability rights attorney, who has been part of many disability rights litigations in Federal courts, also highlighted several accessibility issues associated with deaf and/or hard-of-hearing spectators and litigants. He noted that seldom do courtrooms provide interpreters to hard of hearing/deaf spectators. He also highlighted difficulties that deaf and/or hard-of-hearing individuals face in court-related matters in and outside the courtroom. For example, this interviewee observed that issues exist in providing interpreting services outside the court, e.g., mediation/settlement situations, court mandated programs (e.g., court mandated alcohol rehabilitation classes). He also emphasized the unfairness of possible interpreting costs that could be assessed against losing deaf and/or hard-of-hearing litigants. He noted that the U.S. law, 28 U.S.C. 1920, requires that certain costs accrued during litigation be assessed to losing litigants, and that such costs could include interpreting costs to deaf and/or hard-of-hearing individuals.

2. Issues associated with persons with visual impairment.

The interviews revealed several issues in this category. These issues include access to ECF documents, machine-unreadable hand-written/scanned submissions, and Optical Character Recognition (OCR) of transmittals (e.g., AO Transmittals on Ethics and Judicial Conduct) to judicial personnel with visual impairments. Interviewees emphasized that some of these can be minor, while others can be major. One interviewee, for example, found it to be minor when a single page (or short document) is written by hand and thus machine unreadable. This interviewee observed that co-workers and colleagues frequently (and happily) read to him short documents that are not readable by a screen reader. But he finds it imposing to ask that of co-workers when it comes to long documents. In general, hand-written documents are problematic for persons with visual impairment. One Federal judge interviewee suggested that the Judicial Conference think about how to handle hand-written documents as a uniform rule.

With respect to ECF documents, a former clerk to a Federal district judge with visual impairment, for example, noted that: “When one files any document on ECF, the system “stamps” the document with a header at the top listing the case number, document number, etc.” She added that: “This process—whatever it is—used to turn a previously accessible document into an inaccessible one.” Importantly, this interviewee provided me with a copy of a complaint in a case her office filed as fully accessible. She also sent me the stamped version that’s available on ECF (to both the Court and the parties) that removes all of that accessibility—the screen reader can only read the header in the ECF version.

By “used to turn a previously accessible document into an inaccessible one,” however, the interviewee informed me that she thought this may have been fixed. She “looked at more recent examples” and thought “they’ve actually fixed this issue!” She provided me the original filed version and the one that’s on ECF of a recent case that she was working on. The stamped version of this did not have the screen reader inaccessible issue. “Short answer: I think they may have actually fixed this problem, which is great!”

Other interviewees continue to have issues with Optical Character Recognition (OCR) of transmittals (e.g., AO Transmittals on Ethics and Judicial Conduct) and other documents to judicial personnel. AO transmittals on Guide to Judicial Ethics, for example, usually come with an embedded link to a PDF file that is not directly OCR. And, depending on the browser used to open the file, and which screen reader one is using, the PDF file may be inaccessible.⁵⁶

A related issue is documents submitted by individuals (e.g., attorneys) that is sometimes not accessible—because the attorney may have filed an inaccessible document. A possible remedy to this might be courts adopting a uniform rule for how documents should be submitted.

The Second Circuit provides an excellent example of a uniform rule on how documents should be submitted via the CM/ECF System.⁵⁷ Its “Working With PDFs” (http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/clerk/case_filing/electronic_filing/how_to_use_cmecf/working_with_pdfs.html) outlines Local Rule 25.1(c)(1), 25.1(e), 25.1(j)(3), 25.2(b)(2), 25.2(b)(3), and 27.1(a)(2). These series of rules require:

1. “a document filed in CM/ECF or submitted to the appropriate e-mail box upon the filing of a paper copy in pre-2010 cases to be in Portable Document Format (PDF).”

2. “To upload a document to the CM/ECF system or submit the document to the appropriate e-mail box in PDF, a filer must have computer software that (1) enables a document's conversion to PDF from a word processor format or (2) reads a scanned copy of a document and converts the image to PDF. Adobe Acrobat Standard or Professional is software that will enable either conversion. While Adobe Acrobat Reader works with the CM/ECF system, it offers read-only capabilities. The Court recommends Adobe Acrobat Standard or Adobe Acrobat Professional as either has writing capabilities that permit a filer to manipulate a PDF document and even perform some basic editing.”

3. “A PDF document filed in CM/ECF or submitted to the Court in addition to any required paper copy of a document must be text-searchable. Adobe Acrobat Standard or Adobe Acrobat Professional permits a filer to perform an Optimal Character Recognition ("OCR") scan that will convert the document to a text-searchable format. The Court deems any PDF that is not text-searchable to be non-conforming, and the Court will return a PDF that is not text-searchable to a filer for resubmission.”

4. “A filer uploading a fillable PDF to NextGen CM/ECF must "flatten" the PDF before uploading. Flattening ensures that the document can be viewed on all devices, and prevents others from manipulating or editing the information.”

5. “A filer must also combine multiple PDFs into one PDF in certain instances,… alter a PDF's pagination so that it matches the way the filer initially paginated the submitted document (i.e., make the page numbers properly text-searchable), and divide an oversized PDF for appropriate submission in CM/ECF…Adobe Acrobat Standard or Adobe Acrobat Professional enables a user, among other things, to combine multiple separate PDFs into one PDF as required. Either program also permits necessary adjustment of a PDF's default pagination which designates the first page of a document as Arabic number 1 and continues with sequential Arabic numbering even when the filer has paginated the document differently (e.g., when a filer paginates a brief's table of contents and table of authorities with Roman numerals and argument sections in Arabic numerals). Either program also provides easy manipulation of a PDF so that it can be broken down when its file size is too large.”

The site then gives instructions that “apply only to Adobe Acrobat Professional and Adobe Acrobat Standard.” It notes that: “A filer who uses software other than Adobe Acrobat Professional or Standard to create a PDF must consult the software vendor for information on making the PDF text-searchable, combining the PDF with at least one other PDF, and appropriately paginating the PDF.” The site then provides links to information that provide instructions for completing each of the foregoing tasks:

• Creating a PDF from Word or WordPerfect (http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/clerk/case_filing/electronic_filing/how_to_use_cmecf/creating_a_PDF.html ).

• Making a PDF Text-Searchable (http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/clerk/case_filing/electronic_filing/how_to_use_cmecf/text_searchable_pdfs.html ).

• Flattening a fillable PDF (http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/clerk/case_filing/electronic_filing/how_to_use_cmecf/flattening_pdf.html ).

• Combining multiple PDFS into a single PDF (http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/clerk/case_filing/electronic_filing/how_to_use_cmecf/combining_multiple_pdfs_into_a_single_pdf.html).

• Paginating a PDF (http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/clerk/case_filing/electronic_filing/how_to_use_cmecf/paginating_a_pdf.html).

• Dividing an oversized PDF (http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/clerk/case_filing/electronic_filing/how_to_use_cmecf/dividing_a_pdf.html).

3. The underrepresentation of persons with disabilities, especially judges, in the judiciary.

Virtually all interviewees expressed concern with the underrepresentation of persons with disabilities in the judiciary. In the academic year that work reported in this manuscript was being conducted (2018-2019), a quick search of the number of blind/visually impaired judges in the United States conducted by the author, for example, revealed only two serving at the Federal level, and an additional two serving at the state level. The Honorable Judge David Tatel was a Federal judge with the U.S. Court of Appeal for the DC Circuit, and the Honorable Judge Eric N. Vitaliano was a senior judge with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. Judge Tatel has since retired from the bench, and Judge Vitaliano is still acting as a senior judge, but on a limited basis. A third Federal judge, the Honorable Judge Richard Conway Casey, U.S. Court for the Southern District of New York, died in 2007. The two blind/visually impaired judges that were located as serving at the state level are Judge Peter J. O’Donoghue in New York state, and Justice Richard Bernstein with the Michigan Supreme Court. Judge O’Donoghue retired from the bench in 2023, and Justice Bernstein is still with the Michigan Supreme Court.

As to deaf and/or hard of hearing judges, the statistics are particularly low. An interviewee with the National Association of the Deaf noted that they “are not aware of any persons who were deaf from birth or childhood becoming a judge in the United States at any time in history.” Rather, “the judges we know of that are deaf or hard of hearing either acquired their deafness later in life or were hard of hearing throughout their life rather than deaf.” And that “to the best of our knowledge, there are two well-known late-deafened or hard of hearing judges that recently retired.” These include retired Honorable Judge Richard S. Brown, Wisconsin Court of Appeals and retired Honorable Judge Charles W. Ray, Jr., superior court judge for the 4^th Judicial District of Alaska.

The interviewee with the National Association of the Deaf added that they “have asked Judge Brown (who is now the President of the Association of Late Deafened Adults [ALDA]) about other deaf/hard of hearing judges, and his answer was that there were a few (probably not much more than a handful) but all the ones he knew have all retired or left the bench. He is not aware of any deaf or hard of hearing persons currently serving as a judge.” This interviewee added that they (the National Association of the Deaf) “believe all of these judges served at the state or local level, and that there has never been a self-identified deaf or hard of hearing judge at the Federal level.”

One development since this interview, however, is that Judge Rita Lin, a California state Judge with a hearing disability, has since been nominated and confirmed to a Federal district judgeship. Judge Lin, who lost partial hearing since childhood, and has used hearing aids since then, was nominated by former President Biden in 2023 to serve as a U.S. district court judge for the Northern District of California. Judge Lin was confirmed by the Senate and is now serving as a U.S. district judge.

On the underrepresentation of persons with disabilities in the judiciary, a judge interviewee observed that: “I think that the individual states need to do more to encourage people with disabilities, such as hearing loss or deafness, to apply for judgeships. Too many people assume that a deaf person cannot be a judge because of the impediment. The more the public sees successful deaf and hard of hearing judges, the less this will continue to be a problem.”

Another state judge interviewee observed that there are upwards of 500 judgeships in Arizona. And yet there are only 3 judges with “physical disability.” This interviewee also brought up the issue of the pipeline of individuals going to school to become lawyers and ultimately judges. He observed that few in this pipeline are persons with disabilities, and that effort should be made to increase the number of persons with disabilities in this pipeline.

Other Issues

Other issues that came up in the interviews include the limited knowledge and familiarity with the types of assistive technology available and how they can be used, attitudinal impediments, and the cautionary note that barriers to access are as varied as the types of disabilities individuals have. With respect to assistive technology in the courtroom, one interviewee noted that: “If the participant is deaf, then C.A.R.T. (Computer Assisted Real-time Technology) is essential. If the person has a visual disability, then text-to-speech is important—if there are documents that come into the record. If the participant has an ambulatory disability, then doors which open by pushing a button are important.”

A related issue with the underrepresentation of persons with disabilities in the judiciary that some interviewees emphasized is attitudinal barriers. Several interviewees noted this to be the main barrier. Here, “attitudinal barriers” are meant public attitudes towards persons with disabilities in the judiciary.

One state judge with a speech impediment, for example, observed that, in public opinion surveys, some have expressed that he is difficult to understand. He attributes this sentiment to the limited interactions that people have with persons that are judges with disabilities, for example. Here again, the presence of more individuals with disabilities in the judiciary can provide an important remedy.

Several suggestions for improvement emerged from the foregoing. I outline some of these suggestions immediately below.

Key Suggestions

1. A process that leads to more nomination of qualified people with disabilities in judgeships.

As noted above, one interviewee thought that the individual states need to do more to encourage people with disabilities, such as hearing loss or deafness, to apply for judgeships. Another interviewee suggested the Federal judiciary consider having a process that leads to more nomination of qualified people with disabilities in judgeships. Yet another interviewee suggested the need for programs that help increase the number of people with disabilities in the pipeline of individuals going to school to become lawyers and ultimately judges.

2. Having an accessibility coordinator central in the judiciary that one could talk to for advice, guidance, and recommendations.

One interviewee, for example, made the following observations: “In State courts, and ADA coordinator on the state level, one well versed in the accommodations available and the cost involved, should be available to help county ADA coordinators to do each specific job. The judges should be able to get help by only having to make one phone call. So, e.g., when the court is informed that an accommodation will be needed on certain date, the court need only call the county ADA coordinator. The county ADA coordinator should bring in the state coordinator if he or she does not have the resources available to take care of the problem. At the Federal level, the ADA does not apply. Still, the clerks should be well aware of the accommodations available and act just as a state ADA coordinator would.”

3. Courts adopting a uniform rule for how documents should be submitted.

An excellent example of this is the Second Circuit submission procedure detailed above.

4. Continual judicial education on issues of accessibility.

Interviewees emphasized that this should include programs aimed at increasing knowledge and familiarity with the types of assistive technology available and how they can be used. The observations of a judge interviewee are typical: “There must be continuing efforts to educate the judges and hold these judges accountable. I would like to see judicial ethics rules amended so that judges face suspension or public reprimand if they don’t provide accommodations without good cause. I believe judicial education should have refresher courses every few years as a reminder of the importance of the providing accommodations to those with disabilities. They should be plenary sessions, not break outs. And attendance should be required.”

5. A proactive approach to accessibility.

For example, at the time of the initial preparation of this manuscript, in total, there had been about 191 ad hoc and special committees of the Judicial Conference that had been in place at one time or another since its inception in 1922 (See https://www.fjc.gov/history/administration/judicial-conference-united-states-committees-chronological). To the knowledge of interviewees (as well as a review by the author of this manuscript of the current list of committees at the foregoing site), none has been dedicated to disabilities and access to the courts. Accordingly, it is suggested that the Judicial Conference consider establishing a committee on accessibility or incorporating issues of access as part of the tasks of one of the already established committees.

Another suggestion is a more proactive approach to building architecture. A Federal district judge with a visual impairment, for example, would like to see more uniformity in flooring/building architecture. He suggests a more utilitarian approach to architecture--one that emphasizes the utility of the feature of a building rather than its aesthetic appeal. This judge, for example, noted that for a long time he had issues with identifying the steps of the courthouse building that he works. Presumably the steps were initially designed for aesthetic appeal. But this made it difficult to differentiate one step from the other. This issue persisted for him until yellow edgings were added to the steps.

CONCLUSION

This article detailed results from interviews with some relevant stakeholders aimed at surveying perspectives on accessibility of courts. Here, it was reported that a general consensus from interviews of Federal judicial personnel with disabilities is an overall welcoming and accommodating working environment, with co-workers and colleagues that are very helpful. Some key issues reported from these interviews include (1) concerns about the underrepresentation of persons with disabilities, especially judges, in the judiciary; (2) limited knowledge and familiarity with the types of assistive technology available and how they can be used; (3) communication barriers for hard of hearing and/or deaf individuals; (4) difficulties in accessing documents by persons with vision impairments; and (5) attitudinal impediments. The article emphasized that barriers to access are as varied as the types of disabilities individuals have. Finally, several suggestions from interviewees were noted, including (1) the need for a process that leads to more nominations of qualified people with disabilities in judgeships; (2) the need for continual judicial education on issues of accessibility; (3) the need for a uniform rule for how documents should be submitted; (4) a proactive approach to accessibility; and (5) the need for a centralized accessibility coordinator for advice, guidance, and recommendations. Taken together, results reported in the paper highlight issues from a variety of perspectives, emphasizing the inherent diversity in the disability community.

Appendices

APPENDIX 1: LIST OF RELEVANT STATUTES, FEDERAL REGULATIONS, AND JUDICIAL CONFERENCE POLICIES

A. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1827 and 1828. Court Interpreters Act: this act governs access to Federal courts for deaf, hard-of-hearing, and speech-impaired individuals.

B. 28 U.S.C. § 1920(6). Taxation of costs: the assessment of interpreting cost to a losing party; interpreters as a cost to assess.

C. 42 U.S.C. §§ 4151–4157. This statute mandates removal of architectural and communication barriers in buildings and facilities that are constructed or altered with Federal funds.

D. 29 U.S.C. § 794. “Nondiscrimination under Federal grants and programs.”

E. 5 U.S.C. § 3102 (as recently amended by section 311 of Public Law No. 106-518, the Federal Courts Improvement Act of 2000). “Employment of personal assistants for handicapped employees, including blind and deaf employees.” This act authorized the appointment (and payment) of personal assistants for judicial employees with disabilities.

F. 28 U.S.C. § 331. Based on a statute enacted in 1922, this statute established the Judicial Conference of the United States as the national administrative policy-making body of the Federal judiciary. It provides a key statutory foundation for Federal judiciary policy making.

G. 28 U.S.C. § 332. This statute established the Circuit Judicial Council in 1939 as a parallel body at the circuit level. It comprises the chief circuit judge and equal numbers of circuit and district judges.

H. 28 U.S.C. § 601. Established the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AO) as the administrative wing of the Federal judiciary, which is overseen by the Judicial Conference of the United States. By statute, the AO is supervised by a director and a deputy director appointed and subject to removal by the Chief Justice of the United States.

I. Pub. L. 100-259 (as codified in 20 U.S.C. §1687). The Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987. Amended various civil rights statutes, including section 504, by defining the term “program or activity” to mean “all of the operations of . . . a department, agency . . . or other instrumentality of a State or of a local government.” (See also 29 U.S.C. § 794(b)(1)(a).)

J. Pub. L. 110-325. The ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA) revised the definition of “disability” to more broadly encompass impairments that substantially limit a major life activity. It also clarified who is covered by the law’s civil rights protections.

K. 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101–12213 (Pub. L. 101-336, 104 Stat. 327 (1990)). The 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). This act broadened the anti-discrimination mandate of section 504 to five areas:

• Title I, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12111–12117, “Employment.”

• Title II, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131–12165, “Public Services.”

• Title III, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12181–12189, “Public Accommodations and Services Operated by Private Entities.”

• Title IV, 47 U.S.C. § 225 (and amending 47 U.S.C. § 611), “Telecommunications Services.”

• Title V, 42 U.S.C. 12201–12213, “Miscellaneous Provisions.”

L. Pub. L. No. 111-260, 124 Stat. 2751 (2010) (as codified in various sections of 47 U.S.C.), the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010. Requires advanced communications services and products to be accessible by individuals with disabilities.

II. List of Relevant Federal Regulations

A. Electronic and Information Technology Accessibility Standards, 36 C.F.R. Part 1194.

B. Telecommunications Act Accessibility Guidelines, 36 C.F.R. Part 1193.

C. Accessibility Guidelines for Buildings and Facilities (State and Local Government Facilities), 36 CFR Part 1191

D. Regulations incorporating the statutory changes to the ADA set forth in the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA), which took effect on January 1, 2009, 28 CFR Parts 35 and 36.

E. Auxiliary Aids and Services, 28 C.F.R. § 35.104 and 28 C.F.R. § 36.303(b).

F. Policies and Procedures for Nondiscrimination and Equal Employment, 28 C.F.R. §§ 42.501–.540 (2003).

III. List of Relevant Judicial Conference Policies

A. JCUS-SEP 2018, pp. 29–30 (updating Model EDR Plan).

B. JCUS-MAR 01, pp. 18–19, 25–26 (Reasonable Accommodation for Employees with Disabilities).

C. JCUS-MAR 98, p. 23 (Personal Assistance for Individuals with Disabilities).

D. JCUS-MAR 97, p. 28 (adopting Model Employment Dispute Resolution [EDR] Plan).

E. JCUS-SEP 95, p. 75 (Services to Persons with Communications Disabilities).

F. JCUS-SEP 94, p. 50 (Sign Language Interpreters).

G. JCUS-MAR 10, p. 20 (adopting Model EDR Plan).

H. JCUS-SEP 86, pp. 57–58 (amending 1980 EEO Plan).

I. JCUS-MAR 80, p. 5 (adopting Model Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Plan).

J. JCUS-SEP 79, p. 58 (reaffirmation of 1966 resolution endorsing a national policy of a positive program for equal opportunity of employment).

K. JCUS-SEP 66, p. 62 (endorsement of AO national policy of a positive program for equal opportunity of employment).

IV. List of Relevant Guide to Judicial Policy Content

A. Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 5, Ch. 2, § 255, “Services to the Hearing Impaired and Others with Communication Disabilities.”

B. Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 12, Ch. 2, § 260, “Personal Assistants for Individuals with a Disability.”

V. List of Relevant U.S. Administrative Office of the Court (AO) Memos

April 12, 1996, Memorandum entitled, “Services to Persons with Communication Disabilities.”

Source: Disability and the Federal Courts: A Study of Web Accessibility, Federal Judicial Center (FJC) report (2019), accessible at https://www.fjc.gov/content/343147/disability-and-Federal-courts-study-web-accessibility.

APPENDIX 2: CURRENT CASE LAW

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

In 2004, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Tennessee could be sued for damages under Title II of the ADA for failing to provide access to the courts for people with disabilities. With this ruling, the court affirmed the constitutionality of Title II of the ADA “as it applies to the class of cases implicating the fundamental right of access to the courts.” In his majority opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that Title II “seeks to enforce a variety of other basic constitutional guarantees, infringements of which are subject to more searching judicial review.“ These other guarantees included the right of access to courts protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Case Background, Legal Briefs, and Opinion

www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2003/2003_02_1667

Case Syllabus

www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-1667.ZS.html

Supreme Court Opinion

www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-1667.ZO.html

Tennessee v. Lane: The Legal Issues and the Implications for People with Disabilities (Policy briefing paper from the National Council on Disability (2003))

www.ncd.gov/publications/2003/Sept42003

Source: Disability and the Federal Courts: A Study of Web Accessibility, Federal Judicial Center (FJC) report (2019), accessible at https://www.fjc.gov/content/343147/disability-and-Federal-courts-study-web-accessibility.

APPENDIX 3: SAMPLE ASSISTIVE DEVICES

The list below is offered as a sample of the many (some freely available) assistive devices currently available in the assistive technology arena. The listed software programs are some of the frequently used assistive devices. The sample screen readers, for example, are software programs that enable blind or visually impaired users to read text that is displayed on the computer screen. The sample voice-to-text software, by contrast, allow for the transcription of audio content into text/written words.

1. Adobe Accessibility Tools.

• Adobe has developed a number of tools and resources to make it easier for

• authors to create accessible PDF documents; these are available at

• http://www.adobe.com/accessibility.

2. Apple VoiceOver (Mac OS X interface).

• Assistive technology to support people who are blind or have low vision, Apple VoiceOver is a built-in feature of the Mac OS X interface. It provides options to magnify, keyboard control, and verbal descriptions. The VoiceOver screen reader describes exactly what’s happening on the user’s screen and allows for navigation using gestures or a braille display. The Zoom feature provides a built-in magnifier, with adjustment capability for cursor size, motion, and contrast for specific vision needs (https://www.apple.com/accessibility/mac/vision/).

3. CART (Computer Assisted Real-time Technology).

• The National Court Reporters Association (NCRA) describes this technology as “the instant translation of the spoken word into English text using a stenotype machine, notebook computer and realtime software.” (Quoted from https://www.nad.org/resources/technology/captioning-for-access/communication-access-realtime-translation/.) “The text appears on a computer monitor or other display. CART is specifically recognized by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) as an assistive technology that provides ‘effective communication access’.”

4. ChromeVox (Google Chrome).

• Chromebooks have a built-in screen reader called ChromeVox, which enables people with visual impairments to use the Chrome operating system. Details are available at https://support.google.com/chromebook/answer/7031755?hl=en

5. ChromeVis.

• A Google Chrome extension designed for individuals with low vision. It can be used to magnify any selected text on a webpage.

6. FM Systems.

• Frequency modulation (FM) systems are assistive listening devices that use radio broadcast technology to amplify sound that is brought directly to the ear. “Audio input from a microphone, a television, an audio player, or any electronic sound source is fed into an FM transmitter, which broadcasts the audio input through radio signals that are received by pocket-sized receivers…Persons who use hearing aids with telecoils (T-Coils) can plug a neck-loop or silhouette inductor directly into the receiver. Persons who use hearing aids without T-Coils, as well as those who do not use hearing aids, can use headphones or earbuds that are connected to the receiver. Cochlear implant users can connect a patch cord from the FM receiver to the external processor.” (Quoted from the ABA pamphlet, “Court Access for Individuals who Are Deaf and Hard of Hearing: A Guide,” https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/commission-disability-rights/court-access-guide-lr-intractv-accsb-rev022317.authcheckdam.pdf.)

7. Infrared Systems.

• Infrared (IR) Systems are assistive listening devices that utilize light-based technology. “Infrared systems (IR) work by using infrared light waves that are beamed from one or several IR transmitters to small specialized receivers . . . . Receivers include stethophones that hang from the ears, a headset type that fits over the ears, and a small pocket-size type.” (Quoted from the ABA pamphlet, “Court Access for Individuals who Are Deaf and Hard of Hearing: A Guide,” https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/commission-disability-rights/court-access-guide-lr-intractv-accsb-rev022317.authcheckdam.pdf.) According to the National Association of the Deaf, infrared systems “guarantee privacy because light does not pass through walls.” Consequently, such systems “are the appropriate choice for situations such as court proceedings that require confidentiality.” (https://www.nad.org/resources/technology/assistive-listening/assistive-listening-systems-and-devices.)

8. Inductive Loop

• These are assistive listening devices that utilize an electromagnetic field to deliver sound. And, according to the National Association of the Deaf, these devices “offer convenience to groups of t-coil hearing aid users because those users do not require body worn receivers.” (https://www.nad.org/resources/technology/assistive-listening/assistive-listening-systems-and-devices.) These devices can also be used by non-hearing aid users through use of a headphone and inductive loop receiver.

9. JAWS for Windows

• JAWS (Job Access With Speech) for Windows, made by Freedom Scientific, is a screen reader software for blind and visually impaired individuals. It is one of the oldest screen readers in the market, and by far the most widely used in work-related settings. It offers comprehensive screen-reading capability with the Windows operating system. Details on this software can be found at http://www.freedomscientific.com/Products/software/JAWS.

10. KNFB Reader

• Developed by the National Federation of the Blind and Sensotec NV, KNFB Reader is a mobile app for blind, low-vision, dyslexic, and other print-disabled users that converts text to speech or text to braille. Currently available for iOS, Android, and Windows 10 devices. For more information on this device, go to https://nfb.org/programs-services/knfb-reader.

11. The built in Windows 10 Narrator.

• A screen-reading app that is built into Windows 10 and requires no downloading. It is another “free” screen reader in that it comes with the Microsoft 10 operating system. The complete guide can be accessed at https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/22798/windows-10-complete-guide-to-narrator.

12. NVDA (NonVisual Desktop Access).

• Developed by NV Access, NVDA is a free, open source, globally accessible screen reader for the blind and vision impaired. This Windows-based software is downloadable at https://www.nvaccess.org/ or at http://www.nvda-project.org. NVDA can be installed to a PC, or the files can be placed on a CD or USB thumb drive for portable use. Runs on Windows XP and Windows Vista.

13. Real-time text (RTT).

• Text transmitted instantly as it is typed or created. Recipients can immediately read the message while it is being written. Frequently used by the deaf, including in IP-Relay services and TDD/TTY devices for the deaf.

14. Keyguards.

• These are hard plastic covers with holes for each key. Can help individuals with unsteady fingers to avoid striking unwanted keys.

15. Adjustable keyboards.

• These have sections that can be positioned close together or further apart, rotated, and tilted to many angles.

16. Programmable keyboards.

• These allow for the programming of letters, numbers, words, or phrases to be entered by pressing custom keys.

Source: Disability and the Federal Courts: A Study of Web Accessibility, Federal Judicial Center (FJC) report (2019), accessible at https://www.fjc.gov/content/343147/disability-and-Federal-courts-study-web-accessibility.

Key Sources:

American Bar Association. “Court Access for Individuals Who Are Deaf and Hard of Hearing: A Guide.” Accessible online at https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/commission-disability-rights/court-access-guide-lr-intractv-accsb-rev022317.authcheckdam.pdf

International Braille and Technology Center Access Technology Team. “Low-Cost Screen Readers.” Braille Monitor, May 2009. Accessible online at https://www.nfb.org/sites/www.nfb.org/files/images/nfb/publications/bm/bm09/bm0905/bm090506.htm).

National Association of the Deaf. “Assistive Listening Systems and Devices.” Accessible at https://www.nad.org/resources/technology/assistive-listening/assistive-listening-systems-and-devices/.

Acknowledgements

I thank the Federal Judicial Center (FJC) for providing the ideal setting for a research fellowship, and then FJC Research Division Director Jim Eaglin for his excellent mentoring and steady guidance during the fellowship year that the study reported here was completed. The views expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the Federal Judicial Center. The article is also based upon work supported by the U.S. National Science Foundation Independent Research Development (IR/D) Program, while the author is serving as Sociology Program Director at NSF. Any opinion, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in the article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the U.S. National Science Foundation. I acknowledge the contributions of the Honorable Judge Eric N. Vitaliano, Senior Judge, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, who gracefully set a time from his busy schedule to meet and speak with me. My meeting with Judge Vitaliano, his two law clerks, Max Siegel and Sofia Syed, and his Case Manager William Villanueva, provided valuable insights into accessibility issues from the perspective of a Federal district judge. The good judge’s list of additional contacts came to be most useful. My conversations with the Honorable Judge Randall M. Howe, the Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One, provided valuable insights on accessibility of courts on a number of dimensions. Retired Honorable Judge Richard S. Brown, Wisconsin Court of Appeals, provided a wealth of information in his responses to my inquiries. Russell Moy, then General Counsel, Southeastern Universities Research Association and Marc Charmatz, National Association of the Deaf, Law and Advocacy Center, provided ongoing guidance on a number of issues. Thank you all! I am also indebted to a number of individuals in the legal and disability research communities, who took valuable time to speak with me, respond to my many emails, and/or graciously provided guidance. These include Torie Atkinson, Staff Attorney, Disability Rights Advocates; Amy Allbright, Director, Commission on Disability Rights (CDR), American Bar Association (ABA); retired attorney Charlie Brown, former Special counsel for the U.S. Department of Labor and former Agency Ethics Official for the National Science Foundation, and member of the National Federation of the Blind; Valerie Yingling, Legal Program Coordinator, National Federation of the Blind; attorney Susan Kellman, Fellow, American College of Trial Lawyers and member of the CJA panel; Sybren Hoekstra, Staff Attorney at the COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE 2ND CIRCUIT (2014-2018); Mark Bini and Allon Lifshitz, both with the United States Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of New York; Victoria Torres-Butler, a court reporter with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York; Howard A. Rosenblum, Esq., Chief Executive Officer & Director of Legal Services, National Association of the Deaf; the late Judith Heumann, international disability rights advocate and Fellow, the Ford Foundation; and Jonathan Lazar, Professor of Computer and Information Science, College of Information Studies, University of Maryland. I thank you all for your time.

FOOTNOTES