On July 26, 1990, President George H.W. Bush signed into law the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). The ADA was intended to eliminate discrimination against individuals with disabilities by expanding the Rehabilitation Act (Rehab Act) to cover people with disabilities in need of coverage from a non-federal employer or entity. Unfortunately, due to a number of Supreme Court cases narrowing the focus of the ADA, the individuals that were intended by Congress to have full protection under the law were no longer assured adequate coverage. In 2008, in response to the narrowing of the definition of disability and the serious restrictions on the term “substantially limits” that resulted from Supreme Court decisions that led to poor employee success rates, Congress passed the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA). Congress passed this legislation to “restore the intent and protections of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.” President George W. Bush signed the ADAAA into law on September 25, 2008. The ADAAA went into effect on January 1, 2009. This paper will argue that although there have been no decisions thus far applying the ADAAA to cases of discrimination against individuals suffering from mental illness, the amendments enacted in 2008 should result in greater coverage for such individuals. Part I of this paper will examine the history leading up to the passage of the ADAAA, including the failures of the ADA and the decisions by the Supreme Court that severely limited the scope of the ADA. Part II will examine the ADAAA and analyze the impact it should have on cases brought by individuals discriminated against on the basis of their mental illnesses. This discussion will include examining the language of the statute as well as regulations and guidances that should be used to assist courts in protecting the rights of individuals who fall within the scope of the ADAAA because of their mental illnesses. Finally, the paper will conclude that under the ADAAA, individuals with mental illnesses should not continue to have the difficulties in prevailing in discrimination suits that they did under the ADA.