US high court lets disabled golfer ride course

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that a federal anti-discrimination law requires that disabled golfer Casey Martin be allowed to ride in a cart between shots, rather than walk the course, during professional tournaments.

By a 7-2 vote, the high court dealt a major setback to the Professional Golfers' Association (PGA) Tour, the premier U.S. professional golf tour, which argued that changing its rules for one player's physical condition would fundamentally alter the competition.

Justice John Paul Stevens, an avid golfer, said for the court majority that the 1990 law at issue, the Americans with Disabilities Act, prohibited the PGA from denying Martin equal access to its tours on the basis of his disability.

He said allowing Martin, who suffers from a painful circulatory disorder in his right leg that makes it difficult for him to walk long distances, to use a golf cart, despite the PGA's walking requirement, would not fundamentally alter the nature of its tournaments.

"My reaction was obviously relief," Martin said in a teleconference from his hometown of Eugene, Oregon. "It's a great feeling," said Martin, who turns 29 on Saturday.

In the court's first ruling on the relationship between disability law and professional sports, Stevens said the walking rule was neither an essential attribute of the game itself nor an indispensable feature of tournament golf.

"There is nothing in the rules of golf that either forbids the use of carts or penalizes a player for using a cart. That set of rules ... is widely accepted in both the amateur and professional golf world as the rules of the game," he said.

"From early on, the essence of the game has been shot-making -- using clubs to cause a ball to progress from the teeing ground to a hole some distance away with as few strokes as possible," Stevens said.

Martin, who was a college teammate of golf superstar Tiger Woods at Stanford University in the mid-1990s, said: "I don't know if I feel like a winner. I feel relieved." He added, "It's just kind of a relief that I can get it behind me."

Martin, not currently a regular member of the PGA Tour, plays on the Buy.Com Tour where PGA rules also apply. "Lord willing, I would like to get back on the PGA Tour," said Martin, who plans to attempt to qualify.

PGA TOUR WILL FULLY REVIEW RULING

In Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida, PGA Tour Commissioner Tim Finchem said its policy board would "fully review and evaluate" the decision in the coming months, and how the ruling and the law's requirements might affect "its regulations and rules of competition."

He added: "The PGA Tour will continue to welcome Casey as a member and a competitor. As has been the case over the past three years, he will be furnished with a golf cart for his use in Buy.Com Tour and PGA Tour competitions, and we wish him every success."

Finchem said in a teleconference that a quick review of the decision led him to believe that it was a "narrow" ruling that might end up applying only to Martin.

PGA Tour players in Ohio for this week's Memorial Tournament expressed mixed feelings about the ruling.

Hal Sutton, 43, winner of 14 PGA Tour events, said: "I'm happy for Casey Martin. I'm disappointed they didn't see that a golf cart is an added advantage.

"I certainly felt Casey was in a tough position there. But when sports are not able to make rules for their own game, I think it's going to create a big problem. Who does what? We're in a real gray area here now. Who's the governing body of the door they (Supreme Court) opened?"

In his ruling for the majority, Stevens rejected the PGA Tour's argument that the walking requirement could affect the outcome because fatigue may hurt performance.

He said a federal judge in the case found that Martin endured greater fatigue with a cart than his able-bodied competitors did by walking.

Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented. Scalia wrote that in his view the court's opinion "exercises a benevolent compassion that the law does not place it within our power to impose."

He said the court's judgment "distorts" the text and structure of the law and distorts "common sense."

Scalia said the ruling would lead to numerous future cases "and a rich source of lucrative litigation."