United States v. Tennessee

The Arlington Development Center (ADC) (defendant) was a state-operated residential facility in Tennessee for severely mentally disabled individuals. A federal investigation revealed significant deficiencies related to the care of ADC’s residents. The United States (plaintiff) sued Tennessee (defendant) and ADC to improve the conditions for ADC’s residents. Following a trial in 1993, the court found that the conditions at ADC violated the residents’ constitutional rights. The parties worked together on a remedial plan, which was incorporated in a September 1994 stipulated remedial order. The remedial order included timeframes for completing various actions, and the state’s compliance would be overseen by a court-appointed monitor. After Tennessee initially fell behind with compliance, the state proposed a plan of correction to supplement the stipulated remedial order. Through mid-1995, Tennessee failed to achieve compliance and, moreover, effectively abandoned compliance efforts. The United States and the monitor requested and received an emergency order that required Tennessee to comply with five provisions by August 9, 1995. The state agreed to comply. The five provisions were to retain a developmental physician (paragraph 1), perform the duties of a developmental physician (paragraph 2), retain a full-time psychiatrist (paragraph 5), enter contracts with two developmental nurse consultants (paragraph 7), and hire 136 nurses (paragraph 8). As of August 9, Tennessee had failed to comply with the five provisions. The court found Tennessee in contempt and ordered coercive sanctions that were intended to assure the state’s compliance with the five emergency provisions, including fines and requiring a Tennessee commissioner, Cardwell, to spend every fourth weekend at ADC until compliance was achieved. A few months later, Tennessee filed motions for a determination as to its degree of compliance with the emergency order and to purge the court’s contempt finding. The parties agreed that the state had complied with paragraphs 5 and 7, the state conceded noncompliance with paragraph 2, and the parties disputed compliance as to paragraphs 1 and 8.