Theoretical issues in justice studies

In
PGA Tour
v.
Martin
, Casey Martin was a disabled golfer who requested that he use a golf cart
to play golf.
Martin suffers from Klippel-Trenaunay-Weber Syndrome, a congenital and degenerative
circulatory disorder that, in Martin’s case, obstructs the flow of blood from his right leg back to
his heart. The consequences of this for Martin are that his right leg has atrophied, that he suffers
from severe pain in that leg, and that he consequently has great difficulty walking significant
distances. Moreover, walking for an extended time subjects Martin to a heightened risk of
hemorrhaging, blood clots, bone fractures, and, conceivably, having his right leg amputated.
Martin argued that the Americans with Disabilities Act requires that the PGA Tour “make
reasonable modifications” for disabled individuals, otherwise they would be in violation of the
ADA.
The use of golf carts is prohibited during tournaments by the governing agency, PGA Tour.

Martin sued under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Supreme Court ruled in his favor. In
philosophical terms, the Supreme Court held that the individual right denied caused greater harm
than the need for uniformity in practice. Rights, in other words, are superior to conventional
arrangements of justice established by majorities.
Using the Supreme Court case, the understanding of justice from Sandel, including Aristotle and
his notion of Ethics as discussed in class, the modern understanding of what liberalism stands
for, and Rawls’s understanding of justice as fairness, and any number of authors we have read on
equality, compassion, and justice, state which side has the better argument.
You are encouraged to consult the Casey Martin case,
which is posted on Canvas, but it is not
required. Should you cite
Casey Martin
, the citation will be to the page in Word and not to the
actual page numbers of the case. So cite the case like this: (Martin, 5). In the text, the reference
goes like this:
Casey Martin
v.
PGA Tour
. Thus, you can write: In
University of California
v.
Bakke
, the Supreme Court held that
blah blah blah
(Bakke comma followed by a page number in
the Word document). All citations to cases in Sandel’s book are to be cited as: (Sandel, followed
by a page). There is no need to repeat the full name of the case after your first mention. So, write
it this way: In
Casey Martin
, blah blah blah – not: in
Casey Martin
v.
PGA Tour
, blah blah blah.
But you should know this, because it is in the Writing Guidelines.
Do not write an essay on your feelings about this subject without reference to any thinkers
discussed in class or in Sandel’s book. Do not rely exclusively or extensively on authors not
found in Sandel. It is acceptable to use outside research, but not at the expense of Sandel’s book.