42 U.S.C. §§ 12132, 12133
ADA Title II: suing a state or local government over disability discrimination
A federal claim in United States district courts · Last verified August 26, 2026
Title II is the ADA provision that reaches government. No charge to file, no exhaustion, no employee threshold — you can sue the day you encounter the problem.
What it has instead is the hardest immunity question in the statute. Whether a state can be made to pay damages does not turn on how bad the discrimination was. It turns on which constitutional right the conduct happened to implicate — a rule with no real parallel anywhere else on this site.
What the claim is
A state or local government excluded you from, or discriminated against you in, one of its services, programs, or activities. In practice:
- Courthouses without accessible entrances or courtrooms.
- Prisons and jails — medical care, accessible cells, access to programming.
- Public transit — inoperable lifts, inaccessible stations, paratransit failures.
- Public schools and universities, alongside the education-specific statutes.
- Benefits administration, licensing, voting, emergency services.
The defendant is the public entity itself — the state, county, city, or an instrumentality like a transit authority or a public hospital district.
Where the right comes from
An express prohibition, drafted broadly:
no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity.
The enforcement section borrows the remedies of the Rehabilitation Act, which in turn borrows the remedies available under the civil-rights statute governing federally funded programs. That chain of borrowing is not academic — it is why the damages rules below look the way they do.
What a plaintiff has to prove
Three elements:
- A qualified individual with a disability.
- Excluded from, denied the benefits of, or discriminated against in a public entity's services, programs, or activities.
- By reason of the disability.
Failure to make a reasonable modification is a form of discrimination under this title. Circuits differ on whether the plaintiff must show the entity knew of the need for a modification before it can be liable for not providing one — worth checking in your circuit before pleading.
Note what is absent: no requirement that the entity's building be a "place," no nexus test, no brick-and-mortar question. The Title III web-accessibility split that dominates private-business litigation does not arise here, because Title II reaches programs and services rather than places.
How long you have to file
No express period. Courts borrow, and there is genuine disagreement about what.
Most borrow the forum state's personal-injury limitations period, typically two to three years. Some courts apply the four-year federal catch-all on the theory that the claim was made possible by a statute enacted after 1990. Which approach your circuit takes can change the answer by years, so verify rather than assume.
Accrual runs from when the plaintiff knew or should have known of the injury.
What has to happen before you file
Nothing. No administrative charge, no exhaustion, no notice period. You may sue directly.
That is a sharp contrast with the employment title of the same statute, which requires an EEOC charge within 180 or 300 days. Two titles, one Act, opposite prerequisites — and people conflate them constantly.
One qualification for prisoners: a suit about prison conditions still runs into the prison-litigation exhaustion requirement, which applies to the case regardless of which statute supplies the claim.
Who can be sued — and who cannot
Public entities — states, local governments, and their instrumentalities. Not individuals, who are not proper Title II defendants.
Then the immunity question, which is claim-specific and unusual enough to state carefully.
Congress clearly intended to abrogate state sovereign immunity. Whether it validly did so depends on the conduct:
- Where the conduct independently violates the Fourteenth Amendment — or a right incorporated against the states, such as the Eighth Amendment in a prison case — abrogation is valid and damages are available. In United States v. Georgia the Court held that "insofar as Title II creates a private cause of action for damages against the States for conduct that actually violates the Fourteenth Amendment, Title II validly abrogates state sovereign immunity."
- Where it does not, the court asks whether the class of cases is congruent and proportional to the constitutional problem Congress was addressing. Tennessee v. Lane upheld abrogation for the class of cases implicating access to the courts — a fundamental right.
Compare the employment title, where the Court found no valid abrogation. The difference is that Title II reaches conduct touching due process and access rights in a way employment discrimination does not.
Prospective injunctive relief against state officials is always available, whatever the damages answer.
Common defenses
Not a qualified individual, or no exclusion by reason of disability.
Fundamental alteration — the modification would change the nature of the program.
Undue financial or administrative burden, judged against the entity's whole budget rather than the individual program's.
Direct threat.
Sovereign immunity, where the conduct does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment and falls outside a validly abrogated class.
No intentional discrimination, which defeats damages but not injunctive relief.
What the claim pays
Injunctive relief is broadly available and is the main engine of the statute.
Compensatory damages require intentional discrimination — and the majority of circuits satisfy that through deliberate indifference, meaning the entity disregarded a strong likelihood that its action would violate federally protected rights. That is a lower bar than proving animus, and the Supreme Court noted in A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools (2025) that a majority of the courts of appeals to address the question apply it.
Two categorical bars:
- No punitive damages against a public entity, under Barnes v. Gorman.
- No emotional-distress damages. In Cummings v. Premier Rehab Keller (2022) the Court held such damages are unavailable under statutes enacted through the Spending Clause, reasoning that a funding recipient would not have understood itself to be accepting that exposure. Because Title II borrows its remedies from the Spending Clause chain described above, courts have carried Cummings across — the Eleventh Circuit was the first court of appeals to do so for Title II, in 2024.
That second bar is severe and underappreciated. It removes the largest category of harm most plaintiffs suffer, leaving out-of-pocket loss and an injunction.
Attorney's fees to a prevailing plaintiff as a matter of course; to a prevailing defendant only where the suit was frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless.
What people get wrong
"I can always get damages from a state under Title II." Only where the conduct violates the Fourteenth Amendment or falls within a validly abrogated class — and only with the required intent.
"I have to file an administrative charge first." No. Title II has no exhaustion requirement. (Title I of the same statute does. They are not interchangeable.)
"I can recover for the humiliation and distress." Not after Cummings.
"I can sue the official who did it." Not under Title II — the public entity is the defendant. Individual-capacity claims run under the civil-rights statute instead.
"Cost is a defense." Only as undue burden measured against the entity's overall resources, not the single program's budget.
"Title III's website rules apply." Different title, different test. Title II reaches programs and services, not places.
Where it came from
Title II built directly on § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which had imposed non-discrimination obligations on recipients of federal funds. The ADA extended those duties to state and local government whether or not federal money was involved.
The defining feature is the abrogation trilogy — Garrett denying abrogation for employment, Lane upholding it for court access, and Georgia tying it to actual constitutional violations. Together they produce something unusual in federal law: a statute whose remedy against a state depends on the constitutional character of the specific conduct, decided class by class.
Common questions
Do I have to file a charge before suing under ADA Title II?
No. Title II has no administrative exhaustion or charge-filing requirement. You may file suit directly. This differs from ADA Title I, which covers employment and does require an EEOC charge.
Can I get money damages from a state under Title II?
Sometimes. Damages are available where the conduct itself violates the Fourteenth Amendment, or falls within a class of cases for which abrogation has been upheld — such as access to the courts. You must also show intentional discrimination, which most circuits satisfy through deliberate indifference.
Can I recover for emotional distress?
No. After Cummings v. Premier Rehab Keller, emotional-distress damages are unavailable under statutes in this Spending Clause family, and courts have applied that holding to Title II.
What is the deadline for an ADA Title II claim?
There is no express period. Most courts borrow the forum state's personal-injury statute, typically two to three years; some apply the four-year federal catch-all. Check your circuit.
Does Title II cover prisons?
Yes. Prisons and jails are services, programs, or activities of a public entity. A prisoner suing over conditions must still exhaust the prison's grievance process under the prison-litigation statute.