Legalities
Life, Politics and the Law From ABC News Correspondent Jan Crawford Greenburg
Jan Crawford Greenburg is a correspondent for ABC News' bureau in Washington DC. She covers politics, the Supreme Court and provides legal analysis for ABC News. She is a graduate of the University of Chicago's law school and is a member of the New York bar.
RECENT POSTS
- Sotomayor on the Hot Seat
- The Fight Over Miguel Estrada Continues
- Sotomayor Confirmation Hearing is Underway
- LIVESTREAMING THE SOTOMAYOR HEARINGS
- Supreme Court Puts Chrysler’s Sale to Fiat on Hold
- White House Contacted Sotomayor Before Souter Announced His Retirement
- Becoming Nominee Sotomayor
- Judge Wood Goes to Washington
- Obama: Fortifying Bush's policies on terror
- The Pitfalls of Politics
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« Previous | Main | Next »
Illegal Cash: Currency Discriminates Against Blind
May 20, 2008 4:04 PM
In a major ruling that could force changes to the nation’s currency, an influential federal appeals court ruled today that the uniform design of U.S. paper money discriminates against the blind and violates a federal disability law.
The decision, by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, could require significant changes in paper money so that the blind can distinguish between different denominations and more easily and independently use cash.
“The current design of paper money springs from the world of the sighted,” the court said in a 2-1 decision. “Upon casual inspection, anyone with good vision can readily discern the value of U.S. currency; yet even the most searching tactile examination will reveal no difference between a $100 bill and a $1 bill.”
That uniform design, the court said, “appears to have been a result of the type of thoughtlessness and indifference” that the federal Rehabilitation Act, a disability discrimination law, was designed to prohibit.
The United States is one of the few major countries that does not vary the size or design of its currency to distinguish between denominations. Disability advocates argue that the uniform design of paper money denies the blind meaningful access to currency.
“Imagine if you had to rely on the good faith of complete strangers to count your money. It is truly is an unreasonable burden to put on anyone—and that’s really the case with the blind,” said Jeffrey Lovitky, the lawyer for the American Council for the Blind, which challenged the design of paper currency. “In conducting any kind of currency transaction, they are required to rely on the good faith of strangers.”
Lovitky said today’s ruling—the first of its kind by a federal appeals court—was a “landmark” that should force key design changes.
Unless the government takes the case to the Supreme Court, the ruling means the Treasury Department will have to develop proposed changes to the currency.
Some could be simple and effective, Lovitky said.
“There are many different, currently available, technically feasible methods they could choose,” he said.
The Euro, for example, has a small piece of foil on bills that varies in size based on denomination. Canadian currency is embossed with dots. Swedish currency has a texture that could be altered, depending on denomination.
Lovitky said it would cost about $50 million to change the currency, an amount that would be absorbed by the banking system.
The case came about in 2002, when the American Council for the Blind sued, alleging the design of US paper money violates a federal law that prohibits the government from discriminating against people with disabilities.
The government had argued that the design of money did not impose an unreasonable burden on the blind because they had alternatives to cash, such as credit cards, and could rely on portable currency readers or the assistance of strangers. It also argued that changing the currency would be expensive and impact third parties, such as the vending machine industry.
But the appeals court rejected those arguments, calling them unpersuasive, and at one point, “somewhat astounding.”
“The (government’s) argument is analogous to contending that merely because the mobility impaired may be able either to rely on the assistance of strangers or to crawl on all fours in navigating architectural obstacles, they are not denied meaningful access to public buildings,” the court said, in a decision written by Judge Judith Rogers and joined by Judge Thomas Griffith.
Such dependence, the court said, “places the visually impaired at a distinct disadvantage in two-way transactions involving paper currency because they can neither control the actions of those which home they deal nor independently discern whether the paper currency they receive is correct.”
Judge Raymond Randolph dissented, arguing the court had taken up the case prematurely.
May 20, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (45)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
"Unless the government takes the case to the Supreme Court, the ruling means the Treasury Department will have to develop proposed changes to the currency."
Or, since this case involves only a statute (the Rehabilitation Act) and not any constitutional question, Treasury could simply ask Congress to amend the law to add a "currency exemption."
Posted by: KipEsquire | May 20, 2008 4:21:33 PM
It is hard to believe that it would cost $50,000,000 to incorporate a change into our "paper" money. What would it take?
1) you could add a number "water mark" while making the linen "paper"
2) you could add the embossing dots on the cast printing plates.
3) you could put embossing dots on downstream rollers after the sheets of bills are printed.
Hmmmm... maybe 50 of us should get in on this deal and retire wealthy!
Hossheim
Posted by: Hossheim | May 20, 2008 4:29:13 PM
This is a no win situation regardless of what is done with the money supply. If it is paper are we going to put holes in it or put raised points on it; if it is a coin the same issue exists. Coins wear down and some people shave them down. Size alone can not help either, size in comparison to what. I think the court needs to have it's head examined and quit wasting our time and money and thnk things through more.
Posted by: Ralph | May 20, 2008 4:30:50 PM
RALPH- Your remark shows just how insensitive people can be towards the physically disables. I'm sure if you were to lose your sight you would have absolutely no problem relying on the "kindness" of others in our most honorable high integrity society.
But hey, with the BILLIONS we are spending in Iraq I'm sure we don't have the 50 Million to help our own citizens be a little less dependent on stranger's "kindness" anyway...
Posted by: ddfromatlanta | May 20, 2008 4:45:02 PM
This is dumb, Everything discriminates against the blind. How about cars? The judges in this country are going to destroy it.
Posted by: StupidUSA | May 20, 2008 4:58:50 PM
Raised dots on the money is easy and has been done for years in other countries.
50 million is nothign for the US treasury. Nothing.
Posted by: s.b. | May 20, 2008 5:05:41 PM
$50,000,000 to help the blind is pocket change compared to the war in Iraq. Let's spend money on OURSELVES instead of wasting it abroad in wars that only bring destruction and grief! If we're going to get into debt, let's do it on things that at least will benefit US!
Posted by: Daniel | May 20, 2008 5:06:31 PM
How often do we need cash with debit cards or credit cards that we can't just swipe it and have no problem. and if you HAVE to have cash, just carry all 5's so the only change you get will be 1's no matter what and there's nothing to worry about. i bought a pack of gum with my credit card. i want the airline miles and i pay it off every month. Our judges are bored and need something to do i guess...
Posted by: Joe | May 20, 2008 5:08:34 PM
Adding "aftermarket" embossing or marking to currency would be useless: any additions would wear off and it would be all too easy for swindlers to emboss or mark millions of the extent unembossed $1 bills (or even foreign currency) as higher denomination notes. Changing the size is also problematic as it would require major changes to designs to fit the new formats, hence the tens of millions of dollars in making the changes. But here's a question - if someone really wanted to cheat them, how could the blind even determine that they were being given American currency rather than just paper cut to different sizes or low-value foreign banknotes? Are we going to have to start using electronic smart chip "audio" notes? If so, why not just let the visually impaired use electronic debit cards (something that society is moving towards anyway) and exempt them from any fees?
Posted by: Publius | May 20, 2008 5:09:30 PM
we'll probably STAY behind
Posted by: JR | May 20, 2008 5:09:31 PM
I security at a retail mall in Los Angeles and I see one blind person every 4 weeks MAYBE and they surely aren't hanging out alone! They must make up .00000000033% of shoppers, and of them, maybe .00000000023% of them are out walking the city alone. so i can't see what this fuss is about. Joe's right, use debit. Safer for everyone anyway!
Posted by: JimDandy | May 20, 2008 5:13:14 PM
Everyday something is offending someone, I have to agree with Ralph, rediculous.
Posted by: vamphyri | May 20, 2008 5:13:48 PM
So, what's next? What if a person is blind from diabetes, which has also caused peripheral neuropathy (very common among diabetics) so he or she can't feel the raised bumps or other surface anomalies meant to guide the blind? Perhaps we need talking money...oops, that's no good, the guy might be deaf, too. Where does it end?
Posted by: Jim | May 20, 2008 5:15:36 PM
Americans for years have come to Canadian shops and refered to our cash as 'funny money' or 'Monopoly' money, but I always gently let them know that our bills were coloured (yes, with a 'u'), to help the visually impaired.
Posted by: Kerry | May 20, 2008 5:23:31 PM
There use to be a vender in the court house in Alameda Co. California and he was blind but do you know, somehow, he was able to tell the demonination of the bill you gave him to pay for the newspaper or candy or whatever you bought. I have no idea how he could tell the difference but he could. Maybe braile needs to be added to the bills, somehow to help the blind?
Posted by: jc | May 20, 2008 5:47:51 PM
We need multimodal money!!!
Posted by: John Kovacs | May 20, 2008 5:56:52 PM
As a deaf man, I thank my lucky stars that I can see. I deal with my own challenges day-to-day, but this one should be fixed. We owe our own disabled citizens every right that we can give them.
Posted by: Joe | May 20, 2008 6:08:35 PM
What next! Maybe automobiles discriminate against the blind! This is bad law, plain and simple
Posted by: Bluenozer | May 20, 2008 6:11:02 PM
All well and good about the colored money in Canada (and elsewhere), Kerry, but how does that help the color-blind and legally blind? Where does it end?
Posted by: Publius | May 20, 2008 6:14:02 PM
Posted by: Joe | May 20, 2008 6:08:35 PM
What next! Maybe automobiles
The blind are allready saying the newer cars are to quite for them to when they need to cross the street. How about the blind keep doing what the blind have done for years and LEARN to tell the money apart by touch. Geez we are a whinney society.
Posted by: rocketgirl | May 20, 2008 6:25:10 PM
Post a comment
