The U.S. Supreme Court case Tennessee v. George Lane et al., 2003, revolved around the issue of whether Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was applicable to state governments under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. The respondents, including George Lane who used a wheelchair for mobility, had sued Tennessee for not providing accessible court facilities as required by ADA's Title II. They argued that this failure denied them access to services and violated their constitutional rights. The State contended it was immune from such lawsuits under sovereign immunity principles in the Eleventh Amendment. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Lane and others stating that Congress legitimately abrogated states' sovereign immunity when enacting Title II of ADA because it responded proportionately to a history and pattern of unequal treatment towards disabled individuals by States regarding judicial services accessibility.

In the dissenting opinion for Tennessee v. George Lane et al., Justice Scalia, joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice Thomas, argued that Congress overstepped its authority under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment when it enacted Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The dissenters contended that there was insufficient evidence to suggest a pattern of irrational state discrimination in public services against individuals with disabilities. They also disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "congruence and proportionality" test from City of Boerne v. Flores, arguing instead that this standard should be applied more strictly to limit Congress' power under Section 5. Furthermore, they believed that allowing private lawsuits against states for money damages would upset the balance between federal and state governments.