[nfb-talk] Court Decision Regarding Money:

[Kenneth Chrane]

[NOT YET SCHEDULED FOR ORAL ARGUMENT]
No. 07-5063
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
AMERICAN COUNCIL OF THE BLIND, et al, Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
HENRY M. PAULSON, JR., SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY,
Defendant-Appellant.
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE
NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND
IN SUPPORT OF APPELLANT
Scott C. LaBarre (Admission Pending) LaBARRE LAW OFFICES, P.C.
1660 S. Albion, Suite 918 Denver, Colorado 80222 (303) 504-5979
Joseph B. Espo
BROWN, GOLDSTEIN & LEVY, LLP
120 E. Baltimore Street, Suite 1700
Baltimore, Maryland 21202
(410) 962-1030
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
No. 07-5063
AMERICAN COUNCIL OF THE BLIND, et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellees, v.
HENRY M. PAULSON, JR., SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY,
Defendant-Appellant.
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 26.1 and D.C. Cir. R. P. 26.1, Counsel of Record 
for the
National Federation of the Blind Inc., a District of Columbia Corporation 
since 1949, hereby
certifies that it is a 501C(3) non-profit organization. It has no parent 
organization, and no other
corporation, public or otherwise, owns any interest in it.
Dated: August 1,2007 c
Scott C. LaBarre (Admission Pending) LaBARRE LAW OFFICES, P.C.
1660 S. Albion, Suite 918 Denver, Colorado 80222 (303) 504-5979
Joseph B. Espo
BROWN, GOLDSTEIN & LEVY, LLP
120 E. Baltimore Street, Suite 1700
Baltimore, Maryland 21202
(410) 962-1030

TABLE OF CONTENTS
    Page
CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT   i
TABLE OF CONTENTS    ii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES iii
I. INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF IDENTITY AND INTEREST
OF THE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND 1
II. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT 3
III. ARGUMENT 5
A. History, experience, and case law suggest that the blind have labored 
long and hard to achieve basic rights and that equality for the blind does 
not mean that the blind access society's programs and benefits in
an identical manner to sighted individuals ...5
B. The blind have "meaningful access" to this nation's currency 8
C. Congress is the place to redesign currency and incorporate features, 
which provide greater accessibility to it 14
IV. CONCLUSION 15
CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT 17
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 17

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases Page
Alexander v.Choate, 469 U.S. 287,299(1985) 8,9
Campisi v. Acme Markets, Inc., 915 A.2d 117, 121 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2006) 7
FloridaCent. &P.R. Co. v. Williams, 20 So. 558, 562 (Fla. 1896) 7
Massachusetts v. E*Trade Access, Inc.,464 F.Supp.2d 52, 55 (D. Mass 2006) 13

Statutes
29 U.S.C. § 794(a) 8
12U.S.C. §418 14
42 U.S.C. §1382c(a)(2) 5
20 C.F.R. § 404.1581 5

Other Sources
The Right to Live in the World: the Disabled in the Law of Torts,
54 Cal.L. Rev. 841,842(1966) ...6
Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Plaintiff s Motion for
Summary Judgment, 2002 WL 32894284 (2002) 12


IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
No. 07-5063
AMERICAN COUNCIL OF THE BLIND, et al,
Plaintiffs-Appellees, v.
HENRY M. PAULSON, JR., SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY,
Defendant-Appellant.
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE
NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND
IN SUPPORT OF APPELLANT
I. INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF IDENTITY AND INTEREST OF THE NATIONAL 
FEDERATION OF THE BLIND
Although this case addresses the specific issue of whether the blind have 
"meaningful
access" to U.S. currency, it actually raises the more general and often 
debated question of what
equal participation for the blind means in our society.   More specifically, 
this case turns on what
level of participation the law mandates for the blind. The National 
Federation of the Blind, our
nation's largest and oldest organization of the blind, has a unique ability 
to provide a perspective
on the significance of the District Court's ruling that the blind do not 
have "meaningful access"
to this country's currency.
1

The National Federation of the Blind (NFB) is the oldest and largest 
organization of the
blind in America. Dr. Jacobus tenBroek, a blind lawyer and professor, 
founded the Federation in
1940, and its president today is Dr. Marc Maurer, also a blind lawyer.   The 
Federation has
grown to include over 50,000 members organized into affiliates in all fifty 
states plus Puerto
Rico and the District of Columbia and more than seven hundred local chapters 
located in cities of
every size. The Federation also has approximately thirty divisions, one of 
which is the National
Association of Blind Merchants Inc., Kevan Worley, President. Approximately 
three thousand
blind merchants who are members of the NFB will be significantly and 
specifically affected by
the outcome of this litigation.
The purpose of the National Federation of the Blind is the complete 
integration of the
blind into society on a basis of equality. This objective involves the 
removal of legal, economic,
and social discrimination; the education of the public to new concepts 
concerning blindness; and
the achievement by all blind people of the right to exercise to the fullest 
their individual talents
and capacities. It means the right of the blind to work along with their 
sighted neighbors in the
professions, common callings, skilled trades, and regular occupations.
It is estimated that more than one million persons in the U.S. are blind and 
each year
50,000 more will become blind. Studies show that only AIDS and cancer are 
feared more than
blindness. However, blindness need not be the tragedy which it is generally 
thought to be.
NFB is a consumer organization of blind people working together to improve
opportunities for the blind and the understanding of blindness by the 
general public. NFB acts as
a vehicle for collective self-expression by the blind. Since its beginning, 
the NFB has been
working toward the goal of helping blind persons achieve self-confidence and 
self-respect, and
the complete integration of the blind into society on a basis of equality. 
The National Federation
2

of the Blind is doing this by providing public education about blindness, 
information and referral
services, scholarships, literature and publications about blindness, aids 
and appliances and other
adaptive equipment for the blind, advocacy services and protection of civil 
rights, employment
assistance and support services, development and evaluation of technology, 
and support for blind
persons and their families. NFB says, "The real problem of blindness is not 
the loss of eyesight,
but the misunderstanding and lack of information which exist. If a blind 
person has proper
training and opportunity, blindness can be reduced to the level of a 
physical nuisance,"
Although this case has gained a great deal of attention and public 
discussion, the National
Federation of the Blind submits that there are many other, far more 
important, issues that warrant
judicial intervention. Because the blind use U.S. currency successfully and 
do not encounter
significant barriers participating in this nation's commerce posed by the 
existing U.S. currency,
the National Federation of the Blind does not believe that the District 
Court's ruling should
stand. First, under existing legal precedent, the blind cannot say that they 
lack "meaningful
access" to currency. Second, and perhaps most significant, the design and 
management of this
nation's currency is the province of Congress.
II. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
The blind of this nation have been on a long journey from involuntary 
confinement in
care facilities to an ever growing, rightful place as fully participating 
citizens. Just a few
generations ago, the law classified the blind as grossly negligent for 
traveling alone through
public crossings. However, with the advent of civil rights legislation and 
greater public
awareness, that trend has been changing to the point where it is no long 
deemed unreasonable for
the blind to be about in the world and to be there on their own accord. 
While the concept of
equality for the blind is still emerging and achievement of equality by the 
blind is not yet fully
3

accomplished, equality for the blind cannot mean that they are treated 
exactly the same as the
sighted. After all, operation and enforcement of the law cannot give the 
blind sight. What the
law must guaranty, however, is an equal opportunity to participate in the 
programs, activities,
and benefits of society. In other words, the blind must have "meaningful 
access."
As it pertains to U.S. currency, the National Federation of the Blind 
believes that the
blind presently possess "meaningful access" to this nation's currency. The 
blind have developed
strategies which allow them to keep track of and effectively manage their 
paper money. The
Federation believes that radical redesign of U.S. currency is not warranted 
because the blind
already have "meaningful access" to U.S. currency allowing them to 
participate successfully in
our nation's commerce. Rapidly emerging technology will soon obviate the 
need to redesign
paper currency.
The Federation also believes that the Courts are not the appropriate place 
to change the
way U.S. currency is printed. Although the District Court may declare that 
the U.S. Treasury is
violating Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, ultimately Congress and the 
Executive will have
to fashion and fund any alteration to the currency. It appears that Treasury 
is making significant
efforts to furnish more convenient access to paper money by the blind. 
Therefore, the Courts
should not interfere with a process that is well under way.
For these reasons, the National Federation of the Blind urges this Court to 
reverse the
District Court's declaratory judgment. The blind of this nation have 
"meaningful access" to U.S.
currency as currently structured, and the United States Treasury is not 
presently violating Section
504. Although the Federation does not categorically oppose alterations to 
U.S. currency, the
legislative and administrative process must be allowed to proceed.
4

III. ARGUMENT
A.        History, experience, and case law suggest that the blind have 
labored long and hard to achieve basic rights and that equality for the 
blind does not mean that the blind access society's programs and benefits in 
an identical manner to sighted individuals.
Ultimately, issues like those presented in this case go to meaning of 
equality. For a blind
person, does true equality mean that his/her interaction with the world must 
be precisely
comparable to that of the sighted? If the answer to this question is yes, 
then a blind person can
never achieve the desired result. Operation and enforcement of the law 
cannot give a blind
person sight.   Because this is true, the law must operate to give the blind 
an opportunity to
participate meaningfully and an opportunity to access the resources 
necessary to live a complete
and Ml life.1
Although no one argues that the blind have achieved true equality in our 
society, the
blind and people with disabilities generally are closer than ever to 
securing equality and first
class citizenship. That this case can be brought and argued without summary 
dismissal
represents true progress. Only a few generations have passed since a time 
when the blind had to
advocate for the most basic of legal rights. As Dr. Jacobus tenBroek, the 
Federation's founder
and first president, stated:
The actual physical limitations resulting from the disability more often 
than not play little role in determining whether the physically disabled are 
allowed to move about and be in public places. Rather, that judgment for the 
most part results from a variety of considerations related to public 
attitudes, attitudes which not infrequently are quite erroneous and 
misconceived. These include public imaginings about what the inherent 
physical limitations must be; public solicitude about the safety to be 
achieved by keeping the disabled out of harm's way; public feelings of 
protective care and custodial security; public doubts about why the disabled 
should want
1 This brief uses the term blind to include those individuals with no sight 
as well as those who have limited vision making them "legally blind" as 
defined by 42 U.S.C. § 1382c(a)(2) and 20 C.F.R. §404.1581.
5

to be abroad anyway; and public aversion to the sight of them and the 
conspicuous reminder of their plight. For our purposes, there is no reason 
to judge these attitudes as to whether they do credit or discredit to the 
human head and heart. Our concern is with their existence and their 
consequences.
To what extent do the legal right, the public approval, and the physical 
capacity coincide? Does the law assure the physically disabled, to the 
degree that they are physically able to take advantage of it, the right to 
leave their institutions, asylums, and the houses of their relatives? Once 
they emerge, must they remain on the front porch, or do they have the right 
to be in public places, to go about in the streets, sidewalks, roads and 
highways, to ride upon trains, buses, airplanes, and taxi cabs, and to enter 
and to receive goods and services in hotels, restaurants, and other places 
of public accommodation?
The Right to Live in the World: the Disabled in the Law of Torts, 54 Cal. L. 
Rev. 841, 842 (1966).
It is no wonder that Dr. tenBroek felt compelled to ask these basic 
questions. Even
though the National Federation proposed that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 
extend its protections
to individuals with disabilities, the Act did not extend any protection to 
the disabled leaving Dr.
tenBroek to hope that Courts would extend the Act's protections to the 
disabled. Id. at 853.
Consequently, Dr. tenBroek had to turn to the common law and state statutes 
to advance the
rights of the disabled. The long-standing law of the land in 1966 still 
questioned the basic legal
right of the blind to travel alone and assume the same risks as the 
non-disabled. In a case where
a blind man sustained injuries while traveling through a public railroad 
crossing, the Florida
Supreme Court said:
The blind man appreciates, better than any one else, the misfortune of the 
disability under which he labors, and the extra hazards to which that 
misfortune subjects him, and that 'prudence' (a synonym for 'due care') with 
him, at all times, dictates that, when alone, he shall avoid all known 
places of danger where the gift of sight is necessary to. perfect safety. 
What would be an entirely safe path for the man with perfect sight would be 
a death-dealing pitfall for the blind man. Prudence dictates to the one that 
he can tread it safely; to the other that it leads to his destruction. It is 
gross negligence in a blind man to
6

expose himself alone in any situation where he knows that the faculty of 
sight is absolutely necessary to the safety of life and limb.
Florida Cent. & P.R. Co. v. Williams, 20 So. 558, 562 (Fla. 1896).
Today, at least, it is presumed that the blind have the right to be about in 
the land and that
it is not gross negligence for a blind person to participate in the most 
basic of daily activities.
Recently, the Pennsylvania Superior Court addressed a case where a grocery 
store patron tripped
over the cane of a blind employee of the store and sustained injuries. The 
patron alleged that it
was negligence for the store not to post warnings about the presence of a 
blind employee, in
effect alleging that the blind employee was a harmful condition. In holding 
that it was not
negligence, as a matter of law, not to post such warnings, the Court said,
Reasonable persons realize that blind people, or people with
canes, are capable of working in many occupations. Grocery
stores attract a wide variety of customers with various handicaps, including
blindness; thus, a grocery store customer should be well
aware that, at any given moment, there is a reasonable likelihood
he will encounter a disabled person.
Campisi v. Acme Markets, Inc., 915 A.2d 117, 121 (Pa. Super. Ct 2006).
Now that the right to participate in society is clear, the questions become 
what obligation
does society have to modify existing programs to allow a person with a 
disability to participate
by eliminating barriers posed by a disability? This is the question of how 
far and to what extent
accommodations must be made. Although the law mandates that significant 
accommodations
must be made, especially by those who have substantial resources like the 
federal government,
the law does not mandate that all accommodations be made. This concept 
recognizes implicitly
that individuals with disabilities themselves have some obligation to make 
their own
accommodations and develop strategies to address the world as it is. Put 
another way, this
concept calls for a partnership between society and the disabled to affect 
solutions so that the
7

people with disabilities have the opportunity to succeed. Put yet another 
way, the blind and
disabled must have at least "meaningful access" to societal programs, 
privileges, and benefits to
gain the opportunity to succeed.
B.        The blind have "meaningful access" to this nation's currency.
As the blind journey from a complete inability to participate in society, 
the issue becomes
how specific programs and societal benefits should be altered to allow the 
blind "meaningful
access." The key question in this case is whether the blind have meaningful 
access to the
currency printed by the Department of Treasury, more specifically the Bureau 
of Engraving and
Printing. The concept of "meaningful access" comes broadly from the 
interpretation of Section
504's mandate that no federal program or activity may discriminate on the 
basis of disability.
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 prohibits discrimination on 
the basis of disability.
No otherwise qualified individual with a disability in the United States * *
* shall, solely by reason of her or his disability, be excluded from the 
participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to 
discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial 
assistance or under any program or activity conducted by any Executive 
agency or by the United States Postal Service.
29U.S.C. §794(a).
As the Supreme Court has explained, Section 504 reflects "two powerful but
countervailing considerations - the need to give effect to the statutory 
objectives [of assisting the
handicapped] and the desire to keep § 504 within manageable bounds." 
Alexander v. Choate, 469
U.S. 287, 299 (1985). In striking a balance between these competing 
considerations, the Court
has emphasized that "Section 504 seeks to assure evenhanded treatment for 
handicapped
individuals" but that it does not guarantee "equal results" in the enjoyment 
of benefits from
various programs or activities. Id. at 304. In Alexander, the Court provided 
guidance as to the
type of harm actionable under Section 504, concluding that a State's 
decision to reduce the
8

number of inpatient hospital days reimbursed under Medicaid (from 20 to 
14), did not deny
disabled individuals "meaningful access" to Medicaid benefits. Id. at 301. 
The Court "assume[d]
without deciding that § 504 reaches at least some conduct that has an 
unjustifiable disparate
impact on the handicapped/' id. at 299, but emphasized that not "all action 
disparately affecting
the handicapped" is actionable. Id. at 298.
The Court explained, moreover, that the State had not contravened the 
mandate of
Section 504 even though the impact of the limitation on Medicaid payments 
would fall more
heavily on disabled individuals than the population at large. The proper 
inquiry, the Court
stressed, was whether plaintiffs would have "meaningful access" to the 
Medicaid benefits the
State actually elected to provide. Id. at 302. The Court concluded that, 
having defined a limited
benefit, the State was not required "to alter this definition of the benefit 
being offered simply to
meet the reality that the handicapped have greater medical needs." Id. at 
303.
As it applies to this case, does our federal government have the obligation 
to make
currency accessible in a non-visual manner at any cost? How exactly should 
the currency be
redesigned? Whose right and responsibility is it to determine exactly how 
this should occur?
Can a District Court declare that the blind do not have meaningful access to 
currency unless that
currency is usable by the blind without any inconvenience? Does meaningful 
access for the
blind in this context mean that the blind must use currency in an identical 
manner to the sighted?
The National Federation of the Blind submits that the minor trouble blind 
people encounter in
using currency does not, under existing law, constitute a lack of meaningful 
access.
As the Government points out in its brief, the Plaintiffs to this action 
admit that they
mostly use currency without great inconvenience or significant trouble. They 
cannot identify a
significant frequency of occurrences where they are defrauded. They cannot 
identify a
9

substantial inability to participate in our nation's commerce with the 
existing form of currency.
Appellant's Brief at 24-27.
The NFB believes that this is so because the blind spend their cash just as 
easily as the
average sighted person. Because the blind have won the right to participate 
in the basic activities
of our nation, the blind can get their paper money from a bank or ever 
growing number of
accessible ATM's, use that currency to board a bus, and then spend that 
money on brats and beer
at the ballpark. When some issue arises, the blind bring to bear the 
alternative techniques they
have developed that allow them an ability to participate meaningfully in our 
nation's commerce.
Each blind person develops a different system to keep track of his or her 
paper currency. If a
blind person believes they may be in a situation where someone is likely to 
defraud them, the
blind person can pay with smaller bills to mitigate the extent to which 
insufficient change can be
returned. A blind person can ask a bystander to confirm a certain note or 
make the return of
change very public by announcing in a loud voice something like "this is a 
ten, right? If a blind
person is particularly concerned about a certain merchant, a credit card or 
debit card can be
employed to take paper currency completely out of the equation. In today's 
society, it is
extremely rare to find a merchant who does not accept some sort of credit. 
In fact, the numbers
of places that refuse to handle cash likely exceed those who will only 
accept cash. The old
saying of "cash is king" no longer rings as true as it once did.
These alternative techniques do not even take into consideration the advent 
and future of
assistive technology for the blind. Presently, there are several devices 
which can be used to
verify independently the denomination of a particular paper bill. There is, 
for example, the
currency identifier mentioned in the Government's Brief. Appellant's Brief 
at 10. The National
Federation of the Blind has developed the Kurzweil NFB reader, a hand held 
device which can
10

quickly scan and read all manner of printed documents including currency. 
The number of these
devices is rapidly growing and the expense is rapidly shrinking.
There are many issues of great concern to the blind. However, redesigned 
currency is not
chief among them. The National Federation of the Blind sets policy through 
the adoption of
convention resolutions. In the last fifteen years, the Federation has 
adopted 298 resolutions.
Only two of them have addressed this currency matter. Resolution 94-07 
expresses the interest
of the blind in the modernization of U.S. currency and expresses the blind's 
determination to
educate the public to the fact that blind persons can and do handle their 
own money, no matter
how it looks or feels.
RESOLUTION 94-07
WHEREAS, the United States Department of the Treasury is examining 
alternatives to the present currency for the purposes of making 
counterfeiting more difficult and for making currency more compatible with 
modern technology; and
WHEREAS, revisions to the present currency may include variations
in color, raised markings, bar coding, or other electronically readable 
formats; and
WHEREAS, it is a widespread misconception that blind people cannot handle 
their own money because they cannot see it; and
WHEREAS, it is beyond dispute that blind people can. in fact handle their 
own money; however, bills which can be identified by other than conventional 
print could be more convenient for everyone, may be a necessity to safeguard 
against counterfeiting, and may be desirable to take the best advantage of 
evolving technology: Now, therefore,
BE IT RESOLVED by the National Federation of the Blind in Convention 
assembled this seventh day of July, 1994, in the City of Detroit, Michigan, 
that this organization express the interest of blind people in the 
discussion of a modernized form of currency so that any changes which may 
eventually be made will include methods of identifying money by other than 
strictly visual means; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Federation, notwithstanding its expressed 
interest in the ultimate decisions on currency changes, do all in its
11

power correctly to inform the public that blind people can and do 
successfully handle money in its present form.
The Braille Monitor, Vol. 37, No. 8 August/September 1994; see also 
www.nfb.org and clicking
"publications" and further clicking "Braille Monitor."
In 2002, the NFB adopted another resolution on the topic. Resolution 02-25 
specifically
addressed this legal action. It called upon the organization to "take steps 
to counter the adverse
effects of the harmful publicity arising from this lawsuit and renew efforts 
to educate the public
that the blind can participate in commerce." Braille Monitor, Vol. 45, No. 7 
August/September,
2002; see also www.nfb.org and click "publications" and then click "Braille 
Monitor."
As the 1994 resolution states, the National Federation of the Blind does not 
necessarily
oppose ongoing efforts to devise methods to make currency more accessible. 
However, the
Federation is concerned about the negative perception of blind people that 
might be created by
over-emphasizing the issues faced by the blind while manipulating paper 
money. The
Federation's concern is confirmed by one of the pleadings of Appellee in 
this case, which said:
These burdens are significant for millions of Americans. They are
borne on a daily basis by the most vulnerable individuals in our society. 
The
current design of U.S. currency constitutes a major impediment to disabled
individuals in independently engaging in daily life activities, (emphasis
supplied).
Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Plaintiff s Motion for 
Summary Judgment,
2002 WL 32894284 (2002) at p. 28.
This is not the experience of the tens of thousands of members of the 
National Federation
of the Blind. The blind, as a class, are not the most vulnerable individuals 
in our society, and
experience of the blind dictates that manipulation of our nation's currency 
does not constitute a
major barrier or impediment.
12

The kinds of cases where a major or significant barrier arises are those 
where the blind
are entirely shut out from employment, goods, or services. Examples of such 
abound, but the
recent case of Massachusetts v. E*Trade Access, Inc. ,464 F.Supp.2d 52, 55 
(D. Mass 2006),
serves as an excellent example. In this case, the largest deployer of ATM's 
in the world refused
to provide non-visual access to their equipment. As such, the blind had no 
way of accessing an
ATM without significant intervention of a sighted individual. This is not so 
as to the
independent manipulation of currency by the blind. Because of the 
alternative techniques
developed, the blind very rarely need the intervention of sighted 
individuals to manage
effectively their currency.
Another example is the series of cases where those selling goods and 
services through the
internet refuse to design their website in a manner that allows the blind to 
use assistive
technology to access the items for sale. When a website is not compatible 
with assistive
technology for the blind, the blind are shut out from use of that website. 
All that needs to happen
is a slight redesign in the underlying computer code of the site so that the 
various graphical tags
are labeled in such a way so that the screen reading software used by the 
blind will verbalize
what the graphical tag represents.
Even in such cases the blind are not advocating for access identical to that 
of the sighted,
because same would be impossible. First, the blind understand that there 
often are many pictures
and other fancy graphics that will never get adequately described or 
represented. Additionally,
the blind further understand that they must bring their own accommodations 
to bear on the
situation. In other words, the blind must already find ways to acquire the 
assistive technology to
access the websites and otherwise navigate the internet. The blind do not 
demand that the
13

designers and owners of these websites provide every potential blind user 
with the assistive
technology necessary to verbalize the visual messages being sent to the 
screen.
In the overall spectrum of barriers faced by the blind, access and 
management of this
nation's currency is not a significant issue. As demonstrated by the record 
before the District
Court, the blind face little difficulty in accessing use of currency. It 
cannot be said that the blind
are unable to participate in our nation's commerce because our currency has 
not been
significantly redesigned.
The National Federation of the Blind once again wishes to make it clear that 
it does not
oppose an effort to make currency more usable on a non-visual basis. As 
referenced supra,
Federation Resolution 94-07 calls for additional features to be incorporated 
in our currency to
permit greater non-visual access. However, the Federation firmly believes 
that the Courts are not
the place to implement such changes to the currency.
C.        Congress is the place to redesign currency and incorporate 
features, which provide greater accessibility to it.
Congress has made it clear that the design and management of U.S. currency 
falls
squarely upon the shoulders of the United States Department of the Treasury. 
12 U.S.C. § 418.
Nothing in the District Court's ruling effectively changes this fact. 
Although the Court declares
that Section 504 has been violated, such a declaration does not change the 
status quo. The
District Court admits that it does not have the expertise nor the power to 
mandate a specific
alteration to a potential redesign of U.S. currency. If the lower Court's 
decision is allowed to
stand, lawyers, the Judge, and interested individuals sitting around a 
conference table may agree
upon some manner in which to redesign U.S. currency. Ultimately, however, 
the Bureau of
Engraving and Printing, with Congress's blessing through appropriations and 
otherwise, will
have to implement the agreed upon plan. Other than declaring that the 
current design of
14

currency violates Section 504, the Court cannot affect any change without 
the expressed
approval of Congress and the Executive.
Furthermore, there is nothing in the record or otherwise to indicate that 
the United States
government is not taking these concerns seriously. Treasury appears to be 
making a serious
effort to develop long-term solutions to this problem. Appellant's Brief at 
4-11.
Ultimately, technology will obviate the need to redesign radically the U.S. 
currency.
Scanning technology for the blind will be lodged in a common cell phone. 
That technology will
allow a blind person to scan a particular bill and know within a few seconds 
what the particular
denomination is.
Because of the discretion afforded under law and the impracticality of a 
Court
redesigning U.S. currency, ultimately, the blind of this nation must turn to 
Congress and the
Executive to fashion a permanent solution to the relatively minor problem of 
how the blind can
better manipulate U.S. currency. Until that solution is secured, however, 
there is no significant
evidence that the blind face substantial barriers to participating in the 
largest economy in the
world because of an inability to manipulate U.S. "green backs."
IV. CONCLUSION
As stated in several places in this Amicus Brief, the National Federation of 
the Blind does
not categorically oppose an alteration to U.S. currency. The Federation 
believes that a solution
can be found and implemented within existing processes. It is the 
Federation's firm belief that
the United States Courts are not the place to redesign U.S. currency to fix 
a problem that is not
significant compared to the other issues faced by the blind. Judicial 
intervention and national
resources should be focused on and be brought to bear on those activities, 
programs, and
practices that have the affect of shutting out and denying basic opportunity 
to the blind. For the
15

reasons herein, the National Federation of the Blind respectfully urges 
that this Court reverse the
District Court's declaration that the blind lack meaningful access to this 
nation's currency and
that the Department of Treasury is correspondingly violating Section 504 of 
the Rehabilitation Act.
Respectfully Submitted,
Scott C. LaBarre (Admission Pending) LaBARRE LAW OFFICES, P.C.
1660 S.Albion, Suite 918 Denver, Colorado 80222 (303) 504-5979
Joseph B. Espo
BROWN, GOLDSTEIN & LEVY, LLP
120 E. Baltimore Street, Suite 1700
Baltimore, Maryland 21202
(410)962-1030
16

CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT
I hereby certify that the foregoing brief satisfies the requirements of Fed. 
R. App. P.
32(a)(7) and D.C. Cir. Rule 32(a) as follows: the brief was prepared in 
12-point Times New
Roman font and contains 4,802 words, according to the computer word count 
supplied by
Microsoft Word.
Joseph B.Espo
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY on this 1st day of August, 2007, that copies of the 
foregoing Brief
of Amicus Curiae National Federation of the Blind in Support of Appellant 
were mailed, first
class mail, postage prepaid, to:
Jeffrey A. Lovitky
1776 K Street, N.W. Suite 200 Washington, D.C. 20006
and
Marleigh D. Dover
Mark B. Stern
Charles Wylie Scarborough
U.S. Department of Justice
Civil Division, Appellate Staff
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20530

Joseph B. Espo
17