The Americans with Disabilities Act, launched with fanfare and promise during a sunny White House ceremony on July 26, 1990, has had its share of hurdles in these first 14 years. The Supreme Court has interpreted the statute in ways that limit what may be considered a disability, and the Court has questioned the constitutional authority for some parts of the law. But the ADA has brought significant improvements to the lives of persons with disabilities, and, with the continuing diligence of the disability-rights community, the ADA and similar laws will continue to move our society toward being one that fully embraces persons with disabilities.

There is good news. Here are just a few of many examples. It is indisputable that people who use wheelchairs have significantly greater access to government buildings, public gathering places and workplaces because of ADA enforcement and voluntary compliance. Police agencies nationwide are more sensitive than ever to the needs of those with disabilities, providing among other things assistance for those in the criminal-justice system who are deaf, hard of hearing or blind and training their personnel about the needs and abilities of persons with physical or developmental disabilities. The number of persons with disabilities employed nationwide continues to grow, and more employers recognize the value of bringing aboard people they might have denied years ago. In Olmstead v. L.C., the Supreme Court held that the ADA requires states to provide services in the least segregated setting appropriate for the recipient (although the Court left open an exception based on state-funding availability that has proven troublesome). The ADA and its older sibling, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, have changed the legal and societal landscape for people with disabilities, their friends, loved ones and supporters.

But the news is not all good. The Supreme Court has, in the main, taken a narrow view of the protections offered by the ADA. For example, in Sutton v. United Air Lines, the Court held that the question of whether a person is disabled must be answered taking into account the effect of corrective measures such as eyeglasses. As part of its broader examination of the scope of federal power, the Court has also questioned the constitutional authority of Congress to enact portions of the ADA. Thus, in Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett, the Court held that Congress did not have the power to require state governments to comply with Title I of the ADA (the part dealing with employment).

What does the future hold for the ADA? As that important statute enters its fifteenth year, there is reason for optimism both for the ADA itself and for the legal rights of persons with disabilities more generally. For example, in Tennessee v. Lane, the Supreme Court’s most recent pronouncement on the ADA, the State of Tennessee asked the Court to find that Title II of the ADA (which prohibits discrimination against persons with disabilities by government entities) did not pass constitutional muster for the same reasons described in Garrett. The facts of Lane were particularly distressing. George Lane, who uses a wheelchair, could not attend a criminal proceeding against him on the second floor of a Tennessee courthouse. In Lane, the Court surprised many observers by holding, at least with regard to access to courthouses, that Title II of the ADA has a solid constitutional foundation. Lane regrettably does not answer the broader question of the viability of Title II in other circumstances. We should expect that the Court will soon confront that issue, and the disability-rights community should be prepared to put forward its most compelling arguments.

While the ADA has been an important and revolutionary piece of legislation, we should not forget that there are other legal protections for persons with disabilities. For example, entities that receive federal funding are prohibited by the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 from discriminating against the disabled. That includes innumerable state and local government programs. In addition, even before the enactment of the ADA, a number of states had their own laws protecting persons with disabilities. In the last decade, many more states have passed such laws.

The progress of these past 14 years has been remarkable. But the disability-rights community must be as vigilant as ever, and, with federal, state and local elections soon to come, it must demand of our elected officials and would-be elected officials that they make a commitment to continued progress in making our society more hospitable for those with disabilities. We’ve not heard enough from either presidential candidate about their commitments to civil rights for persons with disabilities, and we should demand that they tell us what they’ll do to continue the progress. That’s not a partisan issue. It’s a human issue of transcendent importance.

Dick Thornburgh was Governor of Pennsylvania from 1979 until 1987 and U.S. Attorney General from 1988 until 1991. During his term as Attorney General, he spearheaded the efforts of the first Bush Administration to enact the ADA. David R. Fine is a lawyer in Harrisburg and a frequent writer on matters related to disability rights. Both Messrs. Thornburgh and Fine have sons with disabilities. Both are employed at Kirkpatrick & Lockhart LLP. Contact Mr. Thornburgh at dthornburgh@kl.com and Mr. Fine at dfine@kl.com.