CW: Ableism
On Wednesday, Justin Olson, who is a candidate for a seat as a federal judge in the Southern District of Indiana, admitted during his confirmation hearing that in a 2015 sermon, he had said marriage should not be for “our handicapped friends or our persons with physical disabilities that might prevent the robust marriage that we’re called to.” The resurfacing of this statement has sparked sharp criticism from disability advocates, lawmakers, and legal experts, who argue that such remarks reflect a troubling view of disabled people and their rights.
Olson’s admission is deeply concerning regarding his ability to serve on the federal bench impartially. Judges are expected to uphold civil rights, and his words imply a mindset in which disabled people should be excluded from one of life’s most significant milestones: marriage.
Marriage is more than a personal commitment. It also carries legal implications related to healthcare, benefits, and recognition. Suggesting that disabled people are unfit for marriage undermines decades of progress in disability rights and perpetuates harmful stereotypes.
The controversial words also illustrate existing systemic barriers. Many disabled Americans face what advocates call a “marriage penalty,” where marrying can result in the loss of key benefits that they rely on, such as Medicaid or Supplemental Security Income. This penalty is due to spousal deeming, a policy that counts a spouse’s income and assets against eligibility for benefits. Even a modest income can push disabled people over strict asset limits, resulting in the loss of vital income and healthcare coverage.
For many disabled people, Medicaid is their only means of affording personal care attendants, medical equipment, or life-sustaining treatments. I am among them. My PCA services cost approximately $64,000 annually. Private health insurance does not cover these services, which means losing them can be a matter of life and death.
Real-life examples make the cruelty of this policy crystal clear. People like Gabriella Garbero, an advocate who has spinal muscular atrophy have spoken publicly about delaying marriage to avoid losing Medicaid benefits. Nationwide, couples describe being forced to choose between love and survival-a choice no person should ever make. There are stories of partners holding commitment ceremonies rather than legal marriages or living in fear that a change in household income may strip them of supports that make independent living possible.
Disability rights advocates argue that the penalty is based on outdated assumptions, such as the idea that marriage reduces expenses and that disabled people should depend on their spouses for care. In reality, costs like rent, medical supplies, and personal assistance do not decrease when someone marries. The policy has roots in antiquated thinking, echoing eugenic beliefs that disabled people are “undesirable” partners. These policies serve as a reminder that progress in disability rights has always been hard-won, and the fight continues.
Legislative efforts have been introduced to eliminate the marriage penalty, including bills in Congress designed to allow disabled couples to marry without risking their benefits. Proposals such as the SSI Restoration Act and targeted reforms to Medicaid eligibility rules aim to modernize the system, but progress remains slow.
Advocates see the issue as a civil rights violation, arguing that denying disabled people the right to marry contradicts the promise of marriage equality. The push for reform has become part of a broader movement to dismantle systemic barriers that prevent disabled people from fully participating in society.
Olson’s sermon comments appear not only insensitive but dangerously uninformed. Disabled people are not restricted from “robust marriage” by their bodies. Too often, they are restricted by discriminatory laws.
A federal judge should understand this and be committed to protecting the rights of disabled Americans, not reinforcing harmful stereotypes. His nomination has thus become a contentious issue, raising questions about whether someone who once publicly disparaged disabled people’s right to marry can be tasked with upholding equality and justice from the bench.
The controversy surrounding Olson is not just about one man’s words. It centers on whether the court will reflect the values of inclusion and fairness or whether antiquated beliefs will continue to influence the lives of disabled Americans. For disabled Americans, the stakes are high: their right to marry, access healthcare, and be treated with dignity under the law.
Sources:
LaGorce, Tammy. “Seeking Marriage Equality for People with Disabilities.” The New York Times, The New York Times Company, 25 Aug. 2022, https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/25/style/marriage-equality-disabled-people.html.
Métraux, Julia. “A Federal Judge Nominee Said Disabled People Shouldn’t Be Wed.. in Fact, Many Can’t.” Mother Jones, Mother Jones, 17 Dec. 2025, http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2025/12/indiana-southern-district-federal-judge-nominee-justin-olson-disabled-people-marriage-benefits-cancellation-medicaid-ssi/.
Twardowski, Barbara, and Jim Twardowski. “Disability Benefits and the Marriage Penalty.” Quest, MDA, 12 Feb. 2024, mdaquest.org/disability-benefits-and-the-marriage-penalty/.