The Volokh Conspiracy

It strikes me that mandating a paper currency redesign sufficient to permit the visually-impaired to handle paper money without disadvantage would impose significant externalities on a huge percentage of at least the retail and financial sectors, and on individuals. Size, texture (including Braille), or other tactile cues could well require costly modifications or replacement of everything from automated cash-handling systems (including but not limited to vending machines, self-service checkout kiosks and cash registers), to the billfolds carried by you and me. All for a payment mechanism that is of decreasing practical importance, given the ubiquity of card-based payment systems.

Something just doesn't seem right here. If paper currency is subject to the Rehabilitation Act, wouldn't that logic also require redesign of the Interstate Highway System to accommodate visually-impaired drivers (before drawing the predictable snarky responses, I'm thinking of things that may become technologically feasible like like "driverless" automated vehicle control systems, not Braille speed limit signs...).

The original post (2006) discussed a number of ideas (as well as a lot of controversy) for differentiation and identification of bill denominations. Given the zillions of wallets out there, any differentiation based on size must make bills no larger than the current ones, which is a more or less universal size throughout the world. In addition, to make identification sure, the size differentiation would have to be fairly large. Braille has all sorts of problems when applied to something like paper money, and larger numerals and different colors are no consolation to the totally blind.

The problem is basically an engineering problem, and now, just in time, we have a 21st century solution. The standard bill-reading machines are rather large - about the size of a thick book, and they mainly depend on optical scanning of the entire bill (which is why they don't always work on worn bills).

But it should be possible to incorporate into a bill - possibly in the top center or the corners - an optical or magnetic code which could be read by a small hand-held scanner - with a little work, it could be about the size of a wristwatch and signal - by voice or a code of taps against the operator's wrist or hand - the bill's denomination. This is not some blue-sky vaporware; the basic elements of the idea are all in existence; it's just a matter of integrating and miniaturizing it, and getting the price down into a reasonable range - say, less than $100 retail.

Are these judges deliberately looking for a gigantic solution to a minor problem? Blind folks have adapted extremely well to society, including the handling of money. Braille credit/debit card readers are available. And of course the the most obvious, common sense solution would be a return to the use of gold/silver coins. Today a one ounce gold coin would be the equivalent of a $900 bill. But of course, these legislating judges aren't that brave.

Clearly they aren't discriminating against the blind, just not accomodating their disability.

This won't cost anymore to implement than the other billions private individuals have been forced to spend to comply with the ADA. I expect Obama to propose a tax on all credit card transactions to pay for the costs.

I look forward to reading the opinion, but this, at least facially, seems error where the blind should petition their representatives for redress and relief. How'd they get past the standing issue? -- given courts shouldn't be able to tell the executive and legislative branches how to coin money. See U.S. Const., Art. I, Sec. 8 ("The Congress shall have power to ... coin money, regulate the value thereof...."

Not every harm is cognizable; not every injury is entitled to a remedy, and these limits are especially applicable, of course, to federal courts of express limited jurisdiction.

Narrowly, the Court may have been correct - US paper money could be redisigned - in fact, new bills are about to enter production. And currency-reading machines will need updates to handle the new designs - and colors!

But more widely, adding tactile clues (size, shape, embossing...) might be disproportionate to the problem, and I think there may have been a bit of over-reach in refusing to consider that thousands of machines would have to be replaced rather than have a software upgrade.

OTOH (sheesh) it could be somewhat mooted: at one point, mew bills were to have plastic or metal strips, which could more easily be shaped to the denomination. I am not sure if the strips have actually been incorporated in the new (current) designs, all I have seen are pictures at the US Mint site.

It strikes me that some of the tactile fixes could probably be accomodated without messing with current scanning technology in vending machines -- if you're only adding some raised dots but not changing a bill's shape, say.

I do want to turn to Tuttle's point because it's an utter fallacy, just as it was when it was raised in the 2006 thread. Just because a power is granted to Congress does not mean that there are no bounds upon its use, especially as it relates to the interpretation of subsequent bills passed by another Congress. Only Congress has the power to "pass uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;" that does not mean that such laws are not subject to judicial intepretation.

Well there is pretty easy solution, Congress should exempt currency from the discrimination law. If they want to throw a bone to the blind, they can subsidize development, and distribution of portable OCR bill readers to the blind.

Another Woo Hooo, yeah for the D.C Circuit!

I can't WAIT for this decision to be extended to PAPER court pleadings, notices, discovery, documents, letters/correspondence from opposing attys, mortgages, contracts, settlement agreements, warranty disclaimer tickets, etc etc etc!!!

It is ABOUT TIME!!!

There is nothing like not being able to see the money you're getting back or ...

LOSING A COURT CASE BECAUSE YOU CANNOT READ THE CHARGES, ALLEGATIONS, DEFENSES, OR ORDERS TO SHOW CAUSE!!

And WHAT IS MORE IMPORTANT? The fundamental Constitutional right to meaningful access to the Courts? Or money -- where is the fundamental constitutional right THERE?

"significant externalities" ----> Even under a Posner-ian anaysis, one thing is certain -- if it poses no undue burden to require US Treasury to make paper money accessible to the visually impaired, it is a NO BRAINER that it would not pose an undue burden to require ALL State and Federal Courts to make PAPER pleadings practices accessible -- i.e., by providing PAPERLESS electronic Internet access so visually impaired people can use their own screen readers, voice recognition, etc. Hey, California and Florida Supreme Courts -- how you going to explain where is your undue burden to DENY visually impaired persons PAPERLESS electronic Internet access NOW????

When a Federal Judge points and excitedly utters "Are you blind?" to a litigant, what are his duties to accommodate? (And Nick M is LAUGHING at this very issue in the Vessel Mistress cert petition, predicting cert will be denied ...)

" If paper currency is subject to the Rehabilitation Act, wouldn't that logic also require redesign of the Interstate Highway System to accommodate visually-impaired drivers (before drawing the predictable snarky responses, I'm thinking of things that may become technologically feasible like like "driverless" automated vehicle control systems, not Braille speed limit signs...)" ---->

Actually, this is a very intelligent question, and one that was LAUGHED OUT OF COURT in Day-Petrano v. State of Florida, SCOTUS No. 05-7771 but if the question can legitimately be asked, how was the case "frivolous?" But the significant question of public importance remains: if a person who is visually impaired receives a TRAFFIC TICKET, is that person entitled to accommodations for that to guarantee meaningful court access to FIGHT THE TICKET? It would appear, the answer should be if such is required for access to MONEY, it should all the more be required for Access to the Courts!!

I now KNOW that is why "AnnTM" the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeal clerk admitted to interfering with and obstructing that very case extra-judicially to ensure SCOTUS would not grant cert!

" but I do know that the US is the only country that uses banknotes whose denomination is distinguishable only by reading." ---> Hello! And the same goes for virtually ALL state and federal court systems in ths U.S., including SCOTUS! Worse! Who is the biggest supplier of PAPER to the U.S.? You got it ... CHINA!! And all that CHINA soot, pollutionm abd mercury blows across the Pacific Ocean and falls all over California -- maybe here's a good guess why California's autism rates have SKYROCKETED!!!

Oh, sorry, I forgot, for all you A-B-C-D bar exam test takers, such an obvious answer is outside the box!

"This won't cost anymore to implement than the other billions private individuals have been forced to spend to comply with the ADA" -----> WOW ... for a moment my eyes played tricks on me; I thought you were "He-Who-Does-Not-Want-to-be-Threatened-with-an-ADA-Suit." So sorry, my apologies for mistaking the identity.

"Not every harm is cognizable; not every injury is entitled to a remedy, and these limits are especially applicable, of course, to federal courts of express limited jurisdiction." ---->

Blah, blah, blah. Get a life. You must be a right-wing Republican. Maybe also a candidate for Rochesterians's idea
of neuropsychological testing as presented and discussed on the first Nerd Thread.

At last, "He-Who-Does-Not-Want-to-be-Threatened-with-an-ADA-Suit" can stop worrying about ME ... he has nearly EVERY blind-visually impaired organization to worry about NOW.

I LOVE IT! It is better than watching Maximus defeat Ceasar's togers and chariots in the Roman Coliseum!! I went out this afternoon and reserved a ringside seat ...

corr: " togers " = tigers

"wouldn't that logic also require redesign of the Interstate Highway System to accommodate visually-impaired drivers

Not a reasonable accommodation" ----->

Maybe so, but a Title II public entity State would STILL have the obligation to "remove transportation barriers" to the blind and visually impaired, and the plaint language of the statute governing THAT analysis is not one limited by the term "reasonableness." 42 U.S.C. Sec. 12131(2).

Moreover, there is NOWHERE IN THE PLAIN STATUTORY LANGUAGE OF TITLE II OF THE ADA where the word "reasonable accommodations" is used. Thus, the above-analysis is sheer nonsense!

Incredible to watch when Those-Who-Disregarded-The-Importance-Of-The-ADA try to catch-up on a quicky-read of one of the most complex laws in America.

But all the disbaled Americans KNOW WHAT IT MEANS!

General, it was "The People" that passed the ADA to begin with. If you'd like, you can lobby Congress to write a specific exemption to the ADA for the currency.

Indeed, implementing this ruling will be less costly than lobbying Congress for an exemption to the ADA.

"General, it was "The People" that passed the ADA to begin with. If you'd like, you can lobby Congress to write a specific exemption to the ADA for the currency." ----->

Possibly. However, counting the #s of disabled Americans + increasing that # to account for the huge #s of aging Baby Boomers, + WAIT until ALL THE ILLEGALS FIND OUT THE ADA APPLIES TO EVEN ILLEGALS (you don't have to be a citizen to be protected by the ADA, Wooo Hooooooo!!!!!) at some 20-100 million strong, and WOW ...

THIS contingent will very likely OUT-VOTE any other lobbysit group! Yeah!!

This isn't an ADA case. Rehabilitation Act. Learn to read.

corr: "ti" = to

"Mary, if you think the ADA should not apply to illegals, then your beef is with Congress. Why blame the judges because Congress wrote the law stupidly (or without foresight)?" ---->

What, to coin a Federal Judicial phase, Oren, "are you blind? Can't you read? I do not have any beef WHATSOEVER with the ADA applying to illegals, not at all! In fact, I think IT's GREAT!!!! Really enlarges the plaintiff class but some 20-100 million folks!!!!!

Also, imagine the possibilities with deportation when illegals start raising the RA!!

You simply got yourself all in a big huff because you DID NOT MASTER THE ABILITY TO READ what I wrote!!

Typical, predicatable reaction of a neurotypical toward an autistic, however.

Mary, perhaps you could do a bit better to write in a way that conveys what you thought. Plus, one of my shrinks diagnosed me as autistic at some point (among a whole laundry list of diagnoses that they've tried on me). :-P

corr: " poepl" = people

I can't see either. :)

Mary,

FYI, Oren's original question to you wasn't an attack. It was only a question. So your reply, "are you blind? Can't you read?" came off as undeservedly insulting and hostile. And that undermines your argument, which is well-informed and reasoned when you stick to the substance.

LM, the point is, it did not appear Oren actually read what I wrote. It is pretty hard to make an intelligent response to something you don't read. accurately in the first place.

Mary,

I think that comment would be insulting whoever said it, though I have no way of knowing whether in any particular instance it might or might not be deserved.

In this case, I inferred from your mention of your autism and the difficulty it gives you interpreting non-literal communication that you might have been unclear about the attitude of Oren's question, and possibly also about how your response would be perceived. So my comment was offered as constructive feedback which I thought (hopefully) you might want, and which I thought (hopefully) you might find useful in calibrating future responses. I hope I was correct. If I was mistaken, and the feedback was unwelcome, I apologize for interjecting myself into something that wasn't my business.

LM,

"Mary,

I think that comment would be insulting whoever said it, though I have no way of knowing whether in any particular instance it might or might not be deserved.

In this case, I inferred from your mention of your autism and the difficulty it gives you interpreting non-literal communication that you might have been unclear about the attitude of Oren's question, and possibly also about how your response would be perceived. So my comment was offered as constructive feedback which I thought (hopefully) you might want, and which I thought (hopefully) you might find useful in calibrating future responses. I hope I was correct. If I was mistaken, and the feedback was unwelcome, I apologize for interjecting myself into something that wasn't my business." ------>

Some good points. But here's a countervailing point:

So long as the Courts of the United States and the State Bars are going to allow to go unremedied, unpunished, facilitate, and reward FEDERAL DICTRICT COURT JUDGES pointing and uttering "Are you blind?" to a person with autism/vision impairments as outcome determinative to a case,

why should I not likewise follow that code of conduct, since it is evident that to follow such conduct ...

1. makes me part of the "social norm;"
2. makes me a buddy-colleague-peer of those who govern our courts and state bars, i.e. makes me "fit-in"; and
3. might even get me a reward like the example-setter.

To the extent of the concern about "calibrating" comments, I would note that the question that prompted the FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT JUDGE to point and utter the slur "Are you blind?" was a simple one:

"is a court reporter present?"

The only reason I can fathom for such a stupid, ignorant, outrageous statement is a deeply held unnatural aversion to my autism that was outcome determinative to a case litigated in a Court of the United States.

I was a barber for 30 years before I became a licensed Florida Attorney.

I can state w/o hesitation some barbers have an unnatural aversion to cutting folks' hair who were/had/suffered from:

(1) blindness,
(2) down's syndrome,
(3) wheel-chair bound
(4) deaf
(5) physically deformed
(6) stuttering
(7) autism

The barbers I speak of did not seem to be evil people on the surface; nevertheless, they were in fact pre-disposed to fear/shun disabled people the same way a kitten inherently attacks a mouse and/or mouse decoy.

We all know it was not too long ago Courts of Oyer and Terminer thrived on sub-human pre-dispositions to fear/shun disabled people to the extent Oyer officials would imprison disabled people, place them on trial for witchery and burn them to the stake prior to seizing their property and selling such to he highest bidding non-disabled person.

The brilliant actor Vincent Price played an "OYER" in "The Conqueror Worm." Great film.

Some of the posts I read here clearly reflect the sub-human "Oyer" take on things to the extent I am very happy to see the DC Circuit did the right thing and placed the sickos one step closer to having to deal with disabled people WHETHER THEY FREGGIN' LIKE IT OR NOT.