CW: Institutionalization
The fight for disability rights in the United States is entering a critical new stage, with potential repercussions that could affect how millions of disabled people live and access care. Eight states (Alaska, Florida, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, South Dakota, and Texas), have petitioned a federal court to roll back essential protections related to the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Supreme Court’s Olmstead v. L.C. ruling, which determined that unnecessarily segregating disabled people was discriminatory.
For over twenty-five years, Olmstead has driven states to increase home- and community-based services rather than depending on institutions and nursing homes. It helped show that disabled people should be able to live in their communities Many advocates regard this decision as one of the biggest achievements of the disability rights movement.
The states behind the lawsuit contend that federal agencies have expanded these responsibilities beyond Congress’s original intent. Rising Medicaid expenses, workforce shortages, and increased demand for long-term care have intensified pressure on state budgets. Officials argue that current interpretations of federal law impose costly mandates that states find challenging to fulfill.
Disability advocates caution that weakening these protections would undermine the safeguards designed to prevent unnecessary institutionalization. While many believe that large institutions are relics of the past, home and community-based services are underfunded and hard to access. When home and community-based services are unavailable, institutions and nursing homes—though more restrictive—often have the most consistent funding. This creates a troubling paradox: the least inclusive environments frequently receive the most financial backing.
This issue is not just a theoretical policy debate for me. I have cerebral palsy and have depended on personal care assistants (PCAs) since childhood. My PCA helps me with essential tasks like using the bathroom, dressing, bathing, cooking, and mobility—basic functions that enable me to live independently.
Last month, my PCA hours were reduced. I spent three exhausting weeks preparing an appeal, gathering documentation, and explaining why every single hour is crucial. I am still awaiting my fair hearing. These cuts are not mere bureaucratic decisions; they profoundly alter daily life, creating fear and instability. They force you to worry about how you will manage the next day—not because of your disability, but because the support you rely on can vanish unexpectedly.
Progress has always been fragile. Institutional bias remains deeply rooted in healthcare and other public systems. Hospitals designed for short-term care can quietly become long-term care facilities when discharge planning fails. Nursing homes are still viewed as the “practical” solution when home- and community-based care is deemed too costly or complicated to organize. Bureaucratic delays, staffing shortages, and fragmented funding trap disabled people in settings where they never intended to remain.
Nationwide, disabled people and older adults are growing increasingly concerned as the federal government increases efforts to cut Medicaid funding for home- and community-based services. In California, over a billion dollars allocated for In-Home Supportive Services was suddenly withheld, causing fear about the stability of programs that allow people to live safely at home. Advocates warn this reflects a broader national trend threatening the autonomy and dignity of millions who depend on these services to avoid institutionalization.
Simultaneously, federal authorities have increased scrutiny of fraud and abuse in healthcare programs for long-term care and disability services. Proponents argue that stronger oversight is necessary to protect patients and reduce fraud while critics worry that aggressive enforcement may create additional obstacles for disabled people seeking vital support.
This lawsuit comes amid a wider political shift where courts have grown more skeptical of broad federal regulatory powers. Disability rights protections are now intertwined with larger debates about government roles and the extent of civil rights enforcement. What might seem like a legal argument could ultimately determine how forcefully the federal government can require states to support independent living for disabled Americans.
At its heart, this case poses a profound question: Is the right of disabled people to live in the community a protected civil right, or is it ultimately dependent on what states decide they can afford? The answer will shape disability rights in the U.S. for years to come.
Sources:
Diament, Michelle. “States Ask Federal Court to Strike Disability Protections.” Disability Scoop, 19 May 2026, https://www.disabilityscoop.com/2026/05/19/states-ask-federal-court-to-strike-disability-protections/32006/.
Shapiro, Joseph. “Lois Curtis, Who Won a Landmark Civil Rights Case for People with Disabilities, Died.” NPR, 5 Nov. 2022, https://www.npr.org/2022/11/05/1134426128/lois-curtis-who-won-a-landmark-civil-rights-case-for-people-with-disabilities-di.
“Update to Texas v. Kennedy Lawsuit.” American Council of the Blind, 5 May 2026, https://www.acb.org/update-texas-v-kennedy-lawsuit.