the United States is exclusive pursuant to subsection (a) of this section [233], (emphasis added); see also id. § 233(a). 5 . If Ms. Gray had sought relief against the United States under Title II of the ADA, the more traditional means by which parties file suit based upon discrimination by a "public entity,” 42 U.S.C. § 12132, arguably no court would have been able to exercise subject-matter jurisdiction over the matter. Under Section 201 of the ADA, the federal government is not included within the definition of a public entity. 42 U.S.C. § 12131(1) (defining a "public entity” as any state or local government, instrumentality thereof, or the National Railroad Passenger Corporation); see Cellular Phone Taskforce, et al. v. Federal Commc’ns Comm'n, 217 F.3d 72, 73 (2d Cir. 2000) (<HOLDING>). 6 . The statute states, in relevant part: No
holding that prudential limitations on standing do not apply to title ii ada claims holding that title ii of the ada was a valid use of congress power under section 5 of the fourteenth amendment holding the ada and the rehabilitation act applicable holding that title ii of the ada is not applicable to the federal government holding that title ii does not apply to the states