Federal officials are reversing long-held positions in multiple court cases on the rights of people with disabilities to access home and community-based services, fueling concerns of a return to institutionalization.
In recent weeks, the U.S. Department of Justice pulled out of one disability rights case and completely altered its argument in another, potentially foreshadowing a wave of changes that could affect the lives of thousands of people with disabilities across the nation, advocates say.
“These are very significant reversals of DOJ’s position,” said Eve Hill, a civil rights attorney who served as deputy assistant attorney general for civil rights in the Obama administration. “We are at risk of returning to the terrible conditions people with disabilities were forced to endure when they were locked away out of sight and out of mind.”
Advertisement – Continue Reading Below
The actions come after the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel issued a memo in June stating that neither the Americans with Disabilities Act nor Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act “require states to treat mentally disabled patients in the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs.”
The memo contradicted established interpretations of Olmstead v. L.C., a landmark 1999 Supreme Court decision on the rights of people with disabilities, which found that “states are required to provide community-based treatment for persons with mental disabilities” if certain conditions are met. Even the Justice Department noted in the memo that its new view of Olmstead “is out of step with the common understanding of that decision within the federal courts.”
The Justice Department subsequently said that it would no longer enforce its long-standing guidance on the ADA’s integration mandate and Olmstead.
While the memo does not alter the law itself, it is the official position of the United States government and federal officials are now acting on it.
Last week, the Justice Department told a federal appeals court in Florida that it’s changing its stance in a case involving the rights of children with complex medical needs to live and receive services at home instead of in nursing homes. The Justice Department originally brought the case against the state of Florida and an appeals court upheld an order earlier this year requiring the state to take a number of steps to improve community-based care for children with severe disabilities.
Now, however, federal officials say that the matter should be returned to a lower court and reconsidered. In particular, the Justice Department opposes protections for children who are at risk of entering institutions.
“There is little reason to keep in place injunctive relief where, as here, the plaintiff no longer defends the legal theory on which the injunction was sought and based,” Harmeet K. Dhillon, assistant attorney general for civil rights, wrote in the court filing.
Separately, the Justice Department also dropped out of a case known as Steward v. Abbot this month. The matter, which was initially filed by private plaintiffs, centers on the placement of people with intellectual and developmental disabilities in nursing homes in Texas.
“We anticipate that DOJ will attempt to walk away from other Olmstead matters as well,” said Jennifer Mathis, who served as deputy assistant attorney general for the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division under the Biden administration and is now deputy director at the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law. “While we don’t yet know what that will look like, they have filed notices with the court in a case where they have a settlement with Maine and in another case where they have a settlement with Rhode Island, noting that their findings in those cases had cited guidance that they are no longer relying on. It is unclear what they plan to do at this point but the notices are ominous.”
There are also worries about what the federal government will do in Texas v. Kennedy, a multi-state lawsuit challenging a 2024 update to regulations related to Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. The rule requires that entities funded by the Department of Health and Human Services provide services to people with disabilities in the most integrated setting appropriate and notes that it can be a violation if people are put at serious risk of unnecessary institutionalization.
“If DOJ stops defending the rule, there may be no one left in the case arguing for the federal community-integration requirement,” said Michelle Uzeta, executive director of the Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund.
The government is expected to file an update in that case by the end of the month.
Justice Department officials did not respond to a request for comment on the recent actions or what’s to come.
“For people with disabilities, the stakes are enormous,” Uzeta said. “Although Olmstead is still the law, the regulations remain in effect and disabled people can still bring cases in court, the Justice Department was uniquely positioned to investigate entire state systems and compel them to change. Individual families and small nonprofits simply cannot do that on the same scale.”
