In the case of Pennsylvania Department of Corrections v. Ronald R. Yeskey, 1997, the U.S Supreme Court unanimously ruled that state prisons are subject to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The case was brought by inmate Ronald Yeskey who claimed he had been denied access to a motivational boot camp program due to his hypertension condition - an opportunity which could have led to a reduced sentence. He argued this denial violated his rights under ADA as it discriminated against him based on disability. The State contended that prisoners were not covered by ADA and hence they did not violate any law in denying Yeskey's request for participation in the program because of his medical condition. However, Justice Ginsburg delivered the opinion stating there is no ambiguity about whether state prisons fall within definition of "public entity" under Title II of ADA and thus are bound by its provisions prohibiting discrimination based on disability.

In the dissenting opinion for Pennsylvania Department of Corrections v. Yeskey, Justice Scalia argued that Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) does not apply to state prisoners. He contended that Congress did not clearly express an intention to alter the constitutional balance between states and federal government in this case. The majority's interpretation, according to him, would lead to absurd results such as requiring prisons to provide sign language interpreters for deaf inmates during meals or Braille versions of books in prison libraries which he believed was beyond what Congress intended when it passed ADA. Furthermore, he pointed out that if every action by a public entity is considered a 'program' under ADA then there would be no need for other specific provisions within the act itself - rendering them superfluous.