To be disabled in America is to constantly deal with inconveniences that rise to the level of exclusion. It's no surprise that the last comprehensive civil rights law enacted in the United States was the Americans with Disabilities Act, in 1991. This was decades after similar laws were passed to protect racial minorities, women, religous actors and whistleblowers. Somehow disabled people got lost in the mix.

We've come a long way since the days when people in wheelchairs could not enter buildings or enjoy the benefits of citizenship. But a recent court ruling shows that disability discrimination is not so obvious to us, even as the disabled are helpless to deal with everyday inconveniences.

A federal court has found that U.S. currency discriminates against blind people and others with limited sight. Here is the decision. American paper money is the same size whether its a dollar, or five dollars or 100 dollars. It's also the same color and the bills all look alike if you are not paying close attention. So what does does this all mean for people with limited sight? They cannot differentiate between a dollar bill and a 10 dollar bill. They have to rely on others, including cashiers, to tell them that the 50 dollar bill is not a five dollar bill.

The government opposed the lawsuit, saying that it costs too much to redesign the currency or create other alternatives to allow blind people to differentiate the dollars, including embossed dots, micro-perforations and raised printing. The judge wouldn't have it: "The government also contends that any 'drastic or sudden' changes to the currency could undermine international recognition and acceptance of U.S. currency 'as a common medium of exchange throughout the world. This contention is not only unsupported, but, on its face, is fairly absurd."

While any changes in U.S. currency would cost millions of dollars in research, labor and new machinery, the judge said, the costs would be relatively small in light of the budget of the department that prints the money. The government now has to decide among feasible alternatives in redesigning money.

As expected, when a judge rules in favor of a civil rights theory, some right wing ideologue complains about "judicial activism." A Las Vegas newspaper could not control itself in imagining a worst-case scenario: "Congress passed the Rehabilitation Act to make sure federal offices didn't refuse to hire, say, a person who walks with crutches for some desk job, where being fleet of foot is not a legitimate job requirement. Does anyone really imagine the authors of that act meant to require $20 bills to be different shapes and sizes from $1 bills? Certainly no one else had been able to find that language in the law -- or any statement of such an intent in the congressional debate -- till now. What will Judge Robertson mandate next? Handicapped ramps on nuclear submarines? Special provisions for blind airline pilots?"

Another website which seems to specialize in attacking disability rights lawsuits is similarly dismissive. It makes you wonder how this country would look if people could not enforce their civil rights through the courts.