Real Safety AI Foundation / Research

Disability, Accessibility, and Civil Rights

The Cascading Remedy: Cummings, the 2012 Ratification Record, and the Disparate Impact of Spending Clause Erasure

Publisher: Real Safety AI Foundation

Working paper. Not peer reviewed.

Written
September 2026
Version
v2
Pages
34
Download PDFPlain language slides (PDF)Export BibTeXExport RIS

Abstract

The Supreme Court held in Cummings v.\ Premier Rehab Keller, P.L.L.C. that emotional distress damages are not recoverable in private actions to enforce Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act or Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act, on the theory that Spending Clause statutes operate as quasi-contracts and that emotional distress damages are not traditionally available for breach of contract. By 2026 the Second, Eleventh, and Ninth Circuits had extended the holding to Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, reaching every public entity that receives federal financial assistance. This Article advances three claims. First, the Cummings reasoning operates as a metaphor doing the work of an analogy, asserting that Section 504 is a contract for remedial purposes rather than that it is analogous to one for some purposes and not others. Justice Souter flagged the limit twenty years earlier in Barnes v.\ Gorman, concurring to note that the contract analogy might not produce clear answers about compensatory damages; the majority extended the metaphor through that warning without engaging it. Second, the 2012 Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities ratification record contains formal scope representations by the executive branch and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that existing United States law, including Section 504 in its remedial dimension, fulfilled or exceeded the effective access to justice obligation of Article 13. Cummings is doctrinally inconsistent with those representations. Third, even on its own facially neutral terms, the Cummings rule produces an Alexander v.\ Choate disparate impact within the protected class. The disabled subpopulations whose injuries are predominantly emotional, psychological, dignitary, and stigmatic are precisely the subpopulations whose principal cognizable damages the rule forecloses, while disabled plaintiffs whose injuries map cleanly onto pecuniary loss are largely unaffected. The Article proposes a doctrinal repair limiting Cummings to substantive scope while restoring the remedial tradition the 1973 Congress, the 2012 executive branch, and the disparate impact framework all assumed.

Keywords

  • disability law
  • civil rights remedies
  • Spending Clause
  • contract analogy
  • dignitary harm
  • emotional distress damages
  • within-class disparate impact
  • effective access to justice
  • ratification record
  • scope representation
  • metaphor in legal reasoning
  • special education

Plain language slides

First slide of the plain language summary of The Cascading Remedy: Cummings, the 2012 Ratification Record, and the Disparate Impact of Spending Clause ErasureOpen the 17-slide summary (PDF)

Suggested citation

Gilly, Travis. "The Cascading Remedy: Cummings, the 2012 Ratification Record, and the Disparate Impact of Spending Clause Erasure." Real Safety AI Foundation Working Paper, September 2026. https://realsafetyai.org/research/the-cascading-remedy/

Other versions

This paper is also posted on SSRN.

SSRN version

References (63)

  1. ADA Amendments Act of 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-325, 122 Stat. 3553.
  2. Aleinikoff, T. A. (1988). Updating statutory interpretation. Michigan Law Review, 87, 20.
  3. Alexander v. Choate, 469 U.S. 287 (1985).
  4. Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275 (2001).
  5. American Psychiatric Association. (2022). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed., text rev.).
  6. Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-336, 104 Stat. 327, codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq.
  7. Arlington Central School District Board of Education v. Murphy, 548 U.S. 291 (2006).
  8. Arlington Central School District Board of Education v. Murphy, 548 U.S. 291 (2006).
  9. A.W. by and through J.W. v. Coweta County School District, 110 F.4th 1309 (11th Cir. 2024).
  10. Barker, B. A., Mao, B., Tonkin, S. S., Benson, L., Becerra, J. A., Stanley, N. S., Hébert, E. T., Kendzor, D. E., & Businelle, M. S. (2026). Associations between perceived discrimination events and next-day emotions assessed via ecological momentary assessments. Stress and Health, 42(1).
  11. Barnes v. Gorman, 536 U.S. 181 (2002).
  12. Bell v. New Jersey, 461 U.S. 773 (1983).
  13. Board of Education v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982).
  14. Branco, C., Ramos, M. R., & Hewstone, M. (2019). The association of group-based discrimination with health and well-being: A comparison of ableism with other “isms”. Journal of Social Issues, 75, 814.
  15. Cal. Civ. Code § 54 et seq. (Disabled Persons Act).
  16. Cal. Civ. Code § 51 et seq. (Unruh Civil Rights Act).
  17. Charmatz, M. (2024). New appeals court case finds Title II does not allow for emotional distress damages. Disability Compliance for Higher Education, 30(4), 3.
  18. Charmatz, M. (2022). U.S. Supreme Court holds that compensatory damages for emotional distress not available under Section 504, Title IX, Title VI. Disability Compliance for Higher Education, 27(12), 3.
  19. 158 Cong. Rec. S7326–S7380 (daily ed. Dec. 4, 2012) (vote on resolution of ratification).
  20. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Dec. 13, 2006, 2515 U.N.T.S. 3.
  21. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Treaty Doc. No. 112-7 (May 17, 2012) (presidential transmittal).
  22. Cummings v. Premier Rehab Keller, P.L.L.C., 948 F.3d 673 (5th Cir. 2020).
  23. Cummings v. Premier Rehab Keller, P.L.L.C., 596 U.S. 212 (2022).
  24. Davis ex rel. LaShonda D. v. Monroe County Board of Education, 526 U.S. 629 (1999).
  25. Doherty v. Bice, 101 F.4th 169 (2d Cir. 2024).
  26. Eskridge, W. N., Jr. (1987). Dynamic statutory interpretation. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 135, 1479.
  27. Eskridge, W. N., Jr., & Frickey, P. P. (1990). Statutory interpretation as practical reasoning. Stanford Law Review, 42, 321.
  28. Exec. Rep. No. 112-6, 112th Cong., 2d Sess. (2012) (Senate Foreign Relations Committee report on CRPD).
  29. Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools, 503 U.S. 60 (1992).
  30. Gebser v. Lago Vista Independent School District, 524 U.S. 274 (1998).
  31. Hearing on the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, S. Comm. on Foreign Relations, 112th Cong. (July 12, 2012).
  32. 775 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/1-101 et seq. (Illinois Human Rights Act).
  33. Koszowski, M. (2017). Analogical reasoning in statutory law. Journal of Forensic Research, 8.
  34. Krnjacki, L., Priest, N., Aitken, Z., Emerson, E., Llewellyn, G., King, T., & Kavanagh, A. (2017). Disability-based discrimination and health: Findings from an Australian-based population study. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 42, 172.
  35. Lamond, G. (2014). Analogical reasoning in the common law. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 34, 567.
  36. Levi, E. H. (1948). An introduction to legal reasoning. University of Chicago Law Review, 15, 501.
  37. Lyerly, E. (2022). U.S. Supreme Court limits emotional distress damages in Title IX and other cases. Campus Legal Advisor, 22(11), 4.
  38. Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151B.
  39. N.Y. Exec. Law § 296 (Human Rights Law).
  40. Payan v. Los Angeles Community College District, 169 F.4th 971 (9th Cir. 2026).
  41. Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman, 451 U.S. 1 (1981).
  42. Pettinicchio, D., & Maroto, M. (2024). Economic precarity and changing levels of anxiety and stress among Canadians with disabilities and chronic health conditions throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. Canadian Review of Sociology, 61, 25.
  43. Raymaker, D. M., Teo, A. R., Steckler, N. A., Lentz, B., Scharer, M., Delos Santos, A., Kapp, S. K., Hunter, M., Joyce, A., & Nicolaidis, C. (2020). Having all of your internal resources exhausted beyond measure and being left with no clean-up crew: Defining autistic burnout. Autism in Adulthood, 2, 132.
  44. Rehabilitation Act of 1973, § 504, 29 U.S.C. § 794.
  45. School Board of Nassau County v. Arline, 480 U.S. 273 (1987).
  46. Section 1557 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, 42 U.S.C. § 18116.
  47. Sharkey, C. M. (2003). Punitive damages as societal damages. Yale Law Journal, 113, 347.
  48. Sherwin, E. (1999). A defense of analogical reasoning in law. University of Chicago Law Review, 66, 1179.
  49. Sossamon v. Texas, 563 U.S. 277 (2011).
  50. Sossamon v. Texas, 563 U.S. 277 (2011).
  51. Souter, D. H. (2002). Concurring opinion. In Barnes v. Gorman, 536 U.S. 181, 190.
  52. South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203 (1987).
  53. Sunstein, C. R. (1996). Analogical reasoning. In Legal reasoning and political conflict. Oxford University Press.
  54. Taggart, M. D. (2003). Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act after Garrett: Defective abrogation of sovereign immunity and its remedial impact. California Law Review, 91, 827.
  55. Teitelbaum, J. C. (2014). Analogical legal reasoning: Theory and evidence. American Law and Economics Review, 16, 160.
  56. Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509 (2004).
  57. United States v. Georgia, 546 U.S. 151 (2006).
  58. 42 U.S.C. § 12133 (Title II remedies).
  59. 29 U.S.C. § 794a (remedies).
  60. 42 U.S.C. § 2000d-7 (abrogation of state sovereign immunity).
  61. 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq. (Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964).
  62. Whitney, H. M., & Simpson, R. M. (2019). Search engines and free speech coverage. In The free speech century. Oxford University Press.
  63. Williams, D. R., Lawrence, J. A., Davis, B. A., & Vu, C. (2019). Understanding how discrimination can affect health. Health Services Research, 54(S2), 1374.

All research