Currency: Ribbed for Your Pleasure

Paper money is an entirely visual affair in the United States. Close your eyes, and you can't tell the difference between a single, a sawbuck, or a benjamin. If you're blind, and I know this will come as news to some, it's like having your eyes closed all the time. So what's a blind person to do?

According to the United States Government, fall through your asshole and die. Not really. But apparently, blind people have to

"adapt - [by relying] on store clerks for help, [using] credit cards, [or] folding certain corners to distinguish the bills."

Yes, that makes perfect sense. Tell someone, "Oh, you can't tell which bills are which? Then you can just fold the top left corner of singles, the top right of five-dollar bills, the bottom left of . . . what? You can't tell which pieces of paper you should fold which corner? Well, then, you clearly don't deserve any help from us - go ask the private market to protect you." 'Cause, you know, there's NO INCENTIVE for a business owner to cheat on telling the blind person what they're getting handed. And every store clerk in the whole entire world is honest.

Luckily, as you might know if you followed the link above, the D.C. Circuit (!) had none of it. A 2-1 panel told the government to #$*% off today. In an opinion that is positively non-Dicta-licious, the court points out (Dicta-licious-ized for your pleasure):

1) The U.S. is bass-ackwards because it's the only country that still prints all its paper money in the same size and color.

2) Money's designed to screw the blind (not intentionally, but still).

3) The Government lied its head off in estimating the costs of the changes sought (what a surprise).

4) Blind people shouldn't, in this day and age be required to "rely on the kindness of strangers."

But in two Dicta-worthy passage, the court writes:

"The Secretary's argument [that blind people have developed coping mechanisms] 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."

and then goes on

"The Secretary contends that the visually impaired have not been denied meaningful access to U.S. paper currency in view of the absence of evidence of their being frequently defrauded. A somewhat astounding proposition on its face, the Secretary implies that criminal victimization is a necessary predicate for the disabled to invoke the rights protected [here]."

That's right! Fish gotta swim, bird gotta fly, cripple gotta crawl, blind gotta use credit cards and get defrauded. Clearly our Government is focused on protecting the "least of these."

Finally, the court addresses their dissenting colleague, who found the interlocutory appeal (it's an appeal from a partial summary judgment) premature. The dissenter holds that the appeal should have been dismissed because no "effective accommodation the government could implement without imposing an undue burden" existed in the record. Thus, according to the dissenter, "my colleagues have not identified a single accomodation that is indisputably reasonable effective, and feasible." The majority points out in response that the Secretary never argued that the accommodations proposed wouldn't work, or that they couldn't do them. "Instead, the Secretary relied on costs to establish that implementing all accomodations would be unduly burdensome," and to take the dissent's position "is to rewrite the record" and "[purports] to find disputed facts with respect to issues the Secretary has not raised."

Thus, shorter D.C. Circuit:

Dissenter: The record is incomplete on these legal issues!

Majority: Did you hear the same case we did?! Defendants dropped those issues.

This seems a cert-worthy moment, if the Solicitor General decides to pursue it. Consider: the burden on both the government and the public is fairly great, but the stakes are fairly high in that the plaintiffs are seeking vindication of their basic Constitutional rights. The question is squarely presented - does the Government have to accomodate low- or no-vision people in making currency?

Coming soon to a Supreme Court near you: Foil-wrapped and ribbed dollar bills. I think I need to go lie down.

Here's the opinion:
Amer. Coun. for the Blind v. Paulson, slip op. (D.C. Cir. May 20, 2008).