Background (as cited from the case):

Raymond W. Aswegan, a life sentence inmate at the Iowa State Penitentiary (ISP), brought this lawsuit contending his prison infirmary cell lacks cable television reception in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). Although general population inmates are permitted to purchase television sets that can be connected to the cable television outlets in their cells, infirmary inmates who own televisions lack this amenity because the infirmary cells were designed without cable television hookups. Instead, infirmary inmates entertain themselves by watching television in the infirmary's community room where two cable-equipped televisions (with ample headphones) are available on a daily basis. As the court understood the situation, "[c]able service is necessary for adequate television reception at [the] ISP."

Under the ADA, no qualified individual with a disability can be denied "the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity." Aswegan is ambulatory and his cell is hardly fifty feet from the infirmary's communal television room. The district court decided Aswegan was a qualified disabled person who was denied the benefits of cable television because he routinely lost petty disputes about channel selections with the other infirmary inmates. Believing the ADA applies to the ISP and entitles Aswegan to have unlimited access to the television programs of his choice, the district court ordered the installation of a cable television outlet in Aswegan's cell. Emmett appealed, claiming that cable television is not a basic right. How do you think the court should have ruled?

Discuss in the LSAT Forums >