Washington, D.C. (washingtonpost.com): A federal appeals court today upheld a lower ruling that the U.S. currency system discriminates against blind people because bills of different denominations are the same size, shape and color and cannot be easily distinguished by the visually impaired.

In a 2-1 ruling issued this morning, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit said the existing currency system violates the federal Rehabilitation Act and ruled that the Treasury Department must find a way to accommodate the needs of the visually impaired.

In finding for the American Council of the Blind, which first brought its lawsuit in 2002, the court said Treasury did not prove that changing the currency system would constitute an undue burden for the federal government. Instead, the court found that altering the size or shape of bills would not cost substantially more than other changes the government has made to bills in order to deter counterfeiting.

In addition, the appeals court said, the government could have avoided some of the cost of changing its currency if it had included accommodations for the visually impaired while adding anti-counterfeiting measures in 1996 and 2004.

Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. told the appeals court that the blind can function adequately within today’s currency system by using credit cards or electronic scanners that identify bills of differing amounts, and by relying on assistance from others. But the majority opinion written by Judge Judith W. Rogers sharply disputed that view.

“The Secretary’s argument is analogous to contending that merely because the mobility impaired may be able either to rely on the assistance of strangers or to crawl on all fours in navigating architectural obstacles . . . they are not denied meaningful access to public buildings,” Rogers wrote.

In the original lawsuit, visually impaired citizens testified about having to rely on others to tell them if they were receiving correct change or to alert them if they proffered the wrong bill while conducting financial transactions.

“The Council has demonstrated both the denial of meaningful access and the availability of facially reasonable accommodations that are feasible and efficacious,” Rogers wrote. “[T]he Secretary has not demonstrated that implementation of every such accommodation would involve an undue burden.”

Judge Thomas B. Griffith concurred with Rogers in upholding the 2006 decision by U.S. District Judge James Robertson, while Judge A. Raymond Randolph dissented. Randolph wrote that because the District Court had not ordered a specific remedy when it ruled for the plaintiffs, it was impossible for the appeals court to determine whether whatever remedy was ultimately considered would pose an undue burden to the government.

In his 2006 ruling, Robertson ruled that the government must make changes to its bills, but left it up to the government to decide what changes would be made. He also said that of more than 170 countries that print paper currency, only the United States prints bills that are identical in size and color regardless of denomination.

Today’s appeals court ruling upheld Robertson’s ruling and sent the case back to district court to consider the plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief.

The federal government must now decide whether to appeal the case to the Supreme Court.

The Council of the Blind has suggested distinguishing bills of different amounts by changing their size, adding embossed dots or foil to the paper or using raised ink. The government has said such changes could interfere with anti-counterfeiting efforts.