## Facts

- Hawaii maintained rabies-free status through a statute and regulations requiring a 120-day quarantine for dogs entering from non–rabies-free locations.
- The quarantine applied to all dogs, including guide dogs used by blind or visually impaired persons.
- The state offered limited accommodations: upon written request, a guide-dog owner could stay at no cost in housing at the quarantine station, and after a 10-day observation period the guide dog could train with its owner on station grounds.
- Visually impaired plaintiffs who relied on guide dogs challenged the quarantine’s application to guide dogs under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
- Plaintiffs alleged the quarantine effectively prevented them from accessing the state’s services, programs, and activities on equal terms and proposed alternatives (e.g., vaccination/testing regimes or shorter confinement) as reasonable modifications that would protect public health.
- Plaintiffs also asserted constitutional claims (right to travel, equal protection, substantive due process).
- The district court granted summary judgment to the state officials, reasoning the quarantine was not a state “service or benefit” and thus plaintiffs lacked an ADA claim.

## Issues

1. Whether applying a facially neutral 120-day quarantine to guide dogs can violate ADA Title II by denying visually impaired individuals meaningful access to the state’s services, programs, and activities absent reasonable modifications.
2. Whether a genuine dispute of material fact existed as to whether plaintiffs’ proposed alternatives were “reasonable modifications” under the ADA and implementing regulations.
3. Whether the quarantine violated the constitutional rights to travel, equal protection, and substantive due process.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit reversed the summary judgment and remanded.
- The court held that, without reasonable modifications, applying the 120-day quarantine to guide dogs effectively denies visually impaired individuals meaningful access to the state’s services, programs, and activities because of their disability.
- The court held there was a genuine dispute of material fact on whether plaintiffs’ proposed alternatives constituted reasonable modifications and whether such changes would be consistent with rabies-prevention objectives.
- The court did not reach the constitutional claims.

## Legal Principles

- ADA Title II prohibits disability-based exclusion from participation in, or denial of benefits of, a public entity’s services, programs, or activities, including when a facially neutral policy has discriminatory effects in operation.
- “Meaningful access” is the relevant inquiry; equal application of a rule does not resolve whether a public entity has discriminated when the rule burdens persons with disabilities differently and more severely.
- Public entities must make reasonable modifications to policies, practices, or procedures when necessary to avoid disability-based discrimination, unless the modification would fundamentally alter the nature of the program or impose undue burdens.
- Courts may respect state public health judgments, but must enforce federal antidiscrimination requirements that can require modifications to health and safety policies.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held that Hawaii’s neutral quarantine policy, as applied to guide dogs, could violate ADA Title II because it effectively denied visually impaired persons meaningful access to the state’s services and activities, and it remanded for fact-finding on whether plaintiffs’ proposed alternatives were reasonable modifications consistent with Hawaii’s rabies-prevention program.


Crowder v. Kitagawa, 81 F.3d 1480 (9th Cir. 1996)