28 C.F.R. § 35.152
Jails, detention and correctional facilities, and community correctional facilities
(a) General. This section applies to public entities that are responsible for the operation or management of adult and juvenile justice jails, detention and correctional facilities, and community correctional facilities, either directly or through contractual, licensing, or other arrangements with public or private entities, in whole or in part, including private correctional facilities.
(b) Discrimination prohibited. (1) Public entities shall ensure that qualified inmates or detainees with disabilities shall not, because a facility is inaccessible to or unusable by individuals with disabilities, 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 public entity.
(2) Public entities shall ensure that inmates or detainees with disabilities are housed in the most integrated setting appropriate to the needs of the individuals. Unless it is appropriate to make an exception, a public entity—
(i) Shall not place inmates or detainees with disabilities in inappropriate security classifications because no accessible cells or beds are available;
(ii) Shall not place inmates or detainees with disabilities in designated medical areas unless they are actually receiving medical care or treatment;
(iii) Shall not place inmates or detainees with disabilities in facilities that do not offer the same programs as the facilities where they would otherwise be housed; and
(iv) Shall not deprive inmates or detainees with disabilities of visitation with family members by placing them in distant facilities where they would not otherwise be housed.
(3) Public entities shall implement reasonable policies, including physical modifications to additional cells in accordance with the 2010 Standards, so as to ensure that each inmate with a disability is housed in a cell with the accessible elements necessary to afford the inmate access to safe, appropriate housing.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 32
cases (13 in the last 5 years), 2011–2025 · leading case: Craig Geness v. Jason Cox, 902 F.3d 344 (3rd Cir. 2018).
Craig Geness v. Jason Cox, 902 F.3d 344 (3rd Cir. 2018). “Regulations promulgated under the ADA require that the Commonwealth " shall ensure that inmates or detainees with disabilities are housed in the most integrated setting appropriate to the needs of the individuals," 28 C.F.R. § 35.152 (b)(2) (emphasis added), and "[s]hall not…”
Robert Furgess v. PA Dept of Corr., 933 F.3d 285 (3rd Cir. 2019). “26 28 C.F.R. § 35.152 (b)(1) ("Public entities shall ensure that qualified inmates or detainees with disabilities shall not, because a facility is inaccessible to or unusable by individuals with disabilities , be excluded from participation in, or be denied the benefits of, the…”
Hernandez v. Cnty. of Monterey, 110 F. Supp. 3d 929 (N.D. Cal. 2015). “See 28 C.F.R. § 35.152 . . 28 C.F.R. § 35.152 (b)(1).”
Brown v. Dep't of Pub. Saf. & Corr. Servs., 383 F. Supp. 3d 519 (D. Maryland 2019). “(iii) Shall not place inmates or detainees with disabilities in facilities that do not offer the same programs as the facilities where they would otherwise be housed; 28 C.F.R. § 35.152 (b)(2)(i), (iii), and (iv).”
McBride v. Mich. Dep't of Corr., 294 F. Supp. 3d 695 (E.D. Mich. 2018). “They note that 28 C.F.R. § 35.152 (b)(3) provides that "[p]ublic entities shall implement reasonable policies .”
Meeks v. Schofield, 10 F. Supp. 3d 774 (M.D. Tenn. 2014). “However, the plaintiff also alleges that it was per se discriminatory and a Title II violation to house him in Unit 15, because this amounted to placement in a “designated medical area” even though he was not actually receiving care or treatment, in violation of the express…”
Abdus-Sabur v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 221 F. Supp. 3d 3 (D.D.C. 2016). “3d at 143 (quoting 28 C.F.R. § 35.152 (a) (2015)). *9 Here, the plaintiff fails to state a claim under Title II of the ADA because “[a]s a private prison company, defendant [CCA] is not covered by Title II of the ADA.”
Arce v. Louisiana, 226 F. Supp. 3d 643 (E.D. La. 2016). “” 28 C.F.R. § 35.152 (b)(1). Accordingly, a plaintiff states a claim for relief under the ADA if he-alleges: “(1) that he has a qualifying disability; (2) that he is being denied the benefits of services, programs, or activities 7 for which the public entity is responsible, or…”
Reaves v. Dep't of Corr., 195 F. Supp. 3d 383 (D. Mass. 2016). “2d 650 (2006); see 28 C.F.R. § 35.152 (ADA regulations of correctional facilities).”
Lee v. Corr. Corp. of Am./Corr. Treatment Facility, 61 F. Supp. 3d 139 (D.D.C. 2014). “” 28 C.F.R. § 35.152 (a). The regulation’s definition of “public entity” is the same as the ADA’s.”
Armstrong v. Brown, 103 F. Supp. 3d 1070 (N.D. Cal. 2015). “” 28 CFR § 35.152 (b)(2). Accordingly, the Court finds that in order to ensure compliance with this Court’s orders and with the ADA and its implementing regulations, it is necessary to prohibit Defendants from housing Armstrong class members in administrative segregation due to…”
Johnson v. Florida Dep't of Corr., 826 F. Supp. 2d 1319 (N.D. Fla. 2011). “28 C.F.R. § 35.152 (b)(2)(iii) (requiring public correctional authorities to not “place inmates or detainees with disabilities in facilities that do not offer the same programs as the facilities where they would otherwise be housed”).”
Foster v. Henderson (S.D. Ohio 2023). “For example, Petitioner says: Had the Facility’s Federal funding program [not] excluded me from participation because it was unusable, at 28CFR35.152(B)(1), and Ohio Revised Code 5149.”
Wilson v. Clarke (W.D. Va. 2021). “, specifically 28 C.F.R. § 35.152 (b) and 28 C.F.R. § 36.”
Ted Palladeno v. Gary Mohr (6th Cir. 2021). “so as to ensure that each inmate with a disability is housed in a cell with the accessible elements necessary to afford the inmate access to safe, appropriate housing.”
Esparza v. Manley (E.D. Mo. 2022). “§ 12131 (1)); see also 28 C.F.R. § 35.152 (noting that Title II expressly covers “jails, detention and correctional facilities” run by state and local governments).”
Dudley v. Singleton (N.D. Ala. 2020). “” 28 C.F.R. § 35.152 (a). Those regulations require public entities to “ensure that qualified inmates or detainees with disabilities shall not, because a facility is inaccessible to or unusable by individuals with disabilities, be excluded from participation in, or be denied the…”
Hockaday v. CO Dept. of Corr. (10th Cir. 2019). “§ 12132 ; see also 28 C.F.R. § 35.152 (b)(1) (“Public entities shall ensure that qualified inmates or detainees with disabilities shall not, because a facility is inaccessible to or unusable by individuals with disabilities, be excluded from participation in, or be denied the…”
Richard v. Pfister (N.D. Ill. 2020). “”); see also 28 C.F.R. § 35.152 (b)(2)(iii) (a public entity “shall not place inmates or detainees with disabilities in facilities that do not offer the same programs as the facilities where they would otherwise be housed”).”
Bernard v. Illinois Dep't of Corr. (N.D. Ill. 2022). “at 8 (quoting 28 C.F.R. § 35.152 (a)). Although it is true that Title II of the ADA may cover a private contractor’s actions, liability for such conduct remains with the “public entity.”
Carter v. Washington (E.D. Mich. 2024). “See 28 CFR § 35.152 . Given the exceptionally high stakes for Carter, and the Court’s uncertainty as to whether the Parole Injunction Claim is viable on the current record, the Court concludes that the soundest course of action here is to SUSTAIN Carter’s objection to the…”
Freeman v. Mcdonnell (D.N.J. 2021). “(See 28 C.F.R.§ 35.152 (Title II of the ADA applies to “jails, detention and correctional facilities” run by state and local governments.”
Foster v. Cincinnati City of (S.D. Ohio 2021). “7 28 C.F.R. § 35.152 is titled “Jails, detention and correctional facilities, and community correctional facilities.”
Eaton v. Eynon (D. Or. 2020). “” 28 C.F.R. § 35.152 (b)(1). Case law also reveals Defendants’ argument to be untenable.”
Eaton v. Eynon (D. Or. 2022). “” 28 C.F.R. § 35.152 (b)(1). To prevail on an ADA claim, Eaton must show that: “(1) he is a ‘qualified individual with a disability’; (2) he was either excluded from participation in or denied the benefits of a public entity’s services, programs, or activities, or was otherwise…”
Wallace v. Washington Cnty. Jail (D. Or. 2023). “” 28 C.F.R. § 35.152 (b)(1) (2011). To prevail on an ADA claim under Title II, a plaintiff must show that: “(1) he is a ‘qualified individual with a disability’; (2) he was either excluded from participation in or denied the benefits of a public entity’s services, programs, or…”
Pratt v. Ann Klein Forensic Ctr. (D.N.J. 2019). “Plaintiff challenges Tarik’s prolonged, and more restrictive than necessary, placement in ITU under 28 C.F.R. § 35.152 (b)(2), which requires state facilities to “ensure that inmates or 9 detainees with disabilities are housed in the most integrated setting appropriate.”
Combs v. Giddens (E.D. Va. 2023). “See also 28 C.F.R. § 35.152 . To succeed on a claim under Title II of the ADA, a plaintiff must prove “that (1) he has a disability; (2) he is otherwise qualified to receive the benefits of a public service, program, or activity; and (3) he was ‘excluded from participation in or…”
Sims v. Clarke (W.D. Va. 2020). “28 C.F.R. § 35.152 . Unless an exception is appropriate, such facilities “shall not place inmates or detainees with disabilities in facilities that do not offer the same programs as the facilities where they would otherwise be housed.”
Baxley v. Marshall (S.D.W. Va 2020). “” 28 C.F.R. § 35.152 (b)(1). ADA for a lack of medical treatment.”
Cornell v. West Virginia Div. of Corr. & Rehab. (S.D.W. Va 2024). “” 28 C.F.R. § 35.152 (b)(1). Prisons must also house disabled inmates “in the most integrated setting appropriate to the needs of the individual” and “shall not place inmates .”
Jose Montanez v. Paula Price (3rd Cir. 2025). “either directly or through contractual, licensing, or other arrangements with public or private entities, in whole or in part .”
— 28 C.F.R. § 35.152(B)(1) — 1 case
Foster v. Henderson (S.D. Ohio 2023). “For example, Petitioner says: Had the Facility’s Federal funding program [not] excluded me from participation because it was unusable, at 28CFR35.152(B)(1), and Ohio Revised Code 5149.”
— 28 C.F.R. § 35.152(B)(2) — 1 case
Foster v. Henderson (S.D. Ohio 2023). “For example, Petitioner says: Had the Facility’s Federal funding program [not] excluded me from participation because it was unusable, at 28CFR35.152(B)(1), and Ohio Revised Code 5149.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.