October Term 2014 · Docket 13-1412

Does the ADA require police to accommodate armed, violent suspects with disabilities?

San Francisco police officers shot a woman with a disability during an arrest. Her family claims the city violated federal disability rights laws.

Official caption
City and County of San Francisco v. Sheehan
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Argued
Sources analyzed through
Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    Ms. Van Aken argued the ADA grants important rights during police interactions.

    Mr. Gershengorn stated the ADA provides rights in interactions with police.

    Mr. Feldman claimed the dispute is factual, not legal.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

The case tests whether federal disability law limits how police handle armed suspects.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on March 23, 2015.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

San Francisco wants the court to reject the family's disability claim.

The family wants the court to uphold the lower court's ruling against the city.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

San Francisco argues the ADA does not require accommodations for armed, violent suspects.

The family argues the ADA prohibits discrimination against disabled individuals during police interactions.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Scalia asked if the petition claimed Title II requires accommodations for armed suspects.

Justice Alito asked if the statute defines discrimination in this specific context.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This case defines police duties toward disabled suspects. It shapes how officers handle armed individuals with disabilities. It balances public safety with disability rights.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON