Anthony Bernard Wingfield v. Unknown Garner, CO, et al.

Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires public entities to ensure that people with disabilities are not, by reason of their disability, subjected to discrimination or excluded from public services and programs. As this Court recently recognized, all circuits require plaintiffs seeking damages for ADA violations to show “‘intentional discrimination,’” and a “‘majority’” of circuits have held that a plaintiff can satisfy that requirement by showing that the defendant acted with “‘deliberate indifference’” to the plaintiff’s federally protected rights. A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schs., 605 U.S. 335, 344- 45 (2025). The Fifth Circuit, however, has openly departed from that majority view and held that “deliberate indifference” is “not enough.” App. 11a. Instead, plaintiffs must satisfy a heightened standard that “‘require[s] something more than deliberate indifference,’” such as “‘discriminatory motive’” or “animus.” J.W. v. Paley, 81 F.4th 440, 450-51 (5th Cir. 2023) (emphasis added). As the Fifth Circuit recognized below, that heightened standard dictated the outcome in this case brought by petitioner Anthony Wingfield, a belowthe-knee amputee who was unable to access basic prison services after prison officials confiscated and knowingly withheld his medically necessary footwear. The question presented is: Whether plaintiffs seeking damages under Title II of the ADA must demonstrate something more than the defendant’s deliberate indifference to the plaintiff’s federally protected rights.