dictionary

Martin, in a January 2001 file photo outside the Supreme Court, will be able to ride his golf cart in PGA tournaments.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Professional golfer Casey Martin got the U.S. Supreme Court's blessing Tuesday to use a cart during tournaments. Justices ruled 7-2 that the Americans with Disabilities Act prevents the Professional Golfers' Association from requiring him to walk.

But PGA Commissioner Tim Finchem said that despite the ruling, the PGA plans to keep the walking requirement in its rule book for other golfers.

Martin suffers from Klippel-Trenaunay-Weber Syndrome, a circulatory disease that has left his right leg atrophied and prevents him from walking long distances. He took the PGA to court in 1997 after it refused his request for an exemption to the walking rule, which could have ended his professional career.

VIDEO CNN Legal Analyst Roger Cossack has perspective on the decision (May 29) Play video (QuickTime, Real or Windows Media)    COURT REPORT with Charles Bierbauer U.S. Supreme Court contemplates the rules of golf  FULL TEXT Read the decision in PGA Tour v. Martin (FindLaw)(PDF format) Documents in PDF format require Adobe Acrobat Reader for viewing.  ALSO • Charles Bierbauer on the Casey Martin ruling • CNN Access: Disability activist on Martin decision  IN-DEPTH • Supreme Court News • Court Calendar • Case Index • Justice Profiles • 1999 - 2000 Court Decisions • Supreme Court Home Page  MESSAGE BOARDS • Your Turn - React: Casey Martin • Courts and the Constitution

LEGAL RESOURCES   FindLaw Supreme Court Center   • Court History   • The Justices   • Landmark Decisions FindLaw opinion database: Supreme Court opinions from 1893-2002 Search by party: Search by full-text:

Martin currently competes on the Buy.com Tour because he did not qualify for the PGA Tour last year.

PGA officials maintain that requiring golfers to walk, which introduces stamina as an element of the game, is a fundamental part of the competition, and that letting Martin ride would give him an advantage.

But writing for the court's majority, Justice John Paul Stevens said that letting Martin use a cart would not "fundamentally alter" the competition because he actually gets more fatigued using a cart than his competitors do walking the course.

An exemption "would allow Martin the chance to qualify and compete in the athletic events [the PGA] offers to those members of the public who have the skill and desire to enter," Stevens wrote. "That is exactly what the ADA requires."

The ruling "is a good sign that when future courts look at whether a reasonable adjustment or a reasonable modification is required, they'll look at all the circumstances and they won't give a knee-jerk reaction that supports a rule," said Andrew Imparato of the American Association of People with Disabilities.

Finchem, while saying "we wish [Martin] the best in his future endeavors on the PGA tour," also said the high court's decision was narrowly crafted to apply only to Martin's case and does not appear to be a prohibition on the walking rule.

"It is reasonable to assume that this opinion going forward will relate essentially to Casey Martin and perhaps Casey Martin only," he said. "Our preliminary reading would seem to indicate that we can have rules going forward that allow us to maintain walking in the sport."

He said the PGA will use the language in the decision to create a "framework" for handling future requests for rule exemptions from disabled golfers.

"We should be able to end up in an environment where walking is maintained as an essential part of the sport and where exceptions are extremely infrequent, maybe non-existent," he said. "This could be the only player in the world that is affected."

Finchem cast the Supreme Court decision as at least a partial victory because the language gives the PGA more flexibility than a decision reached by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which, in ruling in favor of Casey, had created a process that was "very cumbersome, almost impossible to administer."

Finchem defended the PGA's decision to fight Martin's request, despite the public relations problems it created.

"We were trying to maintain the integrity of our rules," he said. "Certainly, it was well worth it to get this level of clarification."

In his opinion, Stevens said, "Congress intended that an entity like the PGA not only give individualized attention to the handful of requests that it might receive from talented but disabled athletes for a modification or waiver of a rule to allow them access to the competition, but also carefully weigh the purpose, as well as the letter, of the rule before determining that no accommodation would be tolerable."

Such reasoning drew a spirited rebuke from Justice Antonin Scalia, who dissented from the ruling along with Justice Clarence Thomas.

Scalia took the majority to task for "misty-eyed judicial supervision" of the rules of competitive sports. He said the question was not whether the PGA ought to grant Martin a waiver -- "a close question on which even those who compete in the PGA Tour are apparently divided" -- but whether Congress intended that such decisions should belong the PGA, rather than federal courts.

He termed the majority opinion an "Alice in Wonderland determination that there are such things as judicially determinable essential and non-essential rules of a made-up game."