CW: Institutional Bias
For decades, disability rights advocates have fought for the ability to live in their community rather than in institutions. But a new opinion issued by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has brought some uncertainty over what the future holds.
The controversy involves the 1999 Olmstead v. L.C. Supreme Court case, which ruled that unnecessary institutionalization is discriminatory. Disabled people have the right to live in the most integrated environment possible. Olmstead created opportunities for people to have greater autonomy and to be included.
However, the promises of Olmstead have not been fully realized. Many people can’t access the care they need because of higher costs, insurance issues, labor shortages, and different policies in different states.
The Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel said in its opinion on Thursday that the federal government’s interpretation of Olmstead has exceeded the Supreme Court’s intent. According to the opinion, the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division has used the mandate of integration found in the ADA and the Olmstead decision to compel states to release people from mental health facilities.
The opinion says that federal enforcement actions have resulted in consent decrees, remedial orders, and settlement agreements in almost a dozen states and that each of those states must adhere to certain deinstitutionalization benchmarks. The Office of Legal Counsel argues that this went beyond what the Supreme Court needed to do.
Disability advocates, however, are not focused on legal interpretations. It’s about real people, real lives. Home and community-based services are about more than just a program or policy.
They can be the difference between making choices every day and the choices being made for you. They can mean being able to have relationships, to be involved in community life, to seek employment, and to have independence.
I know what’s on the line because I benefit from home and community-based services. I would have a much poorer quality of life if I lived in a nursing home. I would lose some of the freedom that many people enjoy.
I wouldn’t be able to make my own decisions or be able to go where I wanted to. I wouldn’t be able to choose what I eat for dinner. I couldn’t watch TV when I wanted or have people visit me whenever I wanted. While these decisions may seem trivial, they collectively impact a person’s sense of freedom, dignity, and control over their life.
For this reason, many disability advocates consider Olmstead to be more than a policy objective. It’s more about providing equal opportunities for all people to make decisions, develop relationships, and live in their communities. For some people, institutional care may be the best option, but no one should be forced into an institutional setting simply because there is no available support in the community.
Policymakers, advocates, and courts are still digesting the impact of the DOJ’s opinion, and the future of community-based disability services is unclear. One thing is certain, though: the idea of a world where disabled people can live, work, and thrive in their communities continues to matter. It’s not just a matter of legislation or government power. It is a matter of dignity, humanity, and autonomy.
Source:
Lynch, Sarah N. “States Aren’t Required to Provide Community-Based Care for People with Disabilities, New DOJ Opinion Claims.” CBS News, 18 June 2026, https://www.cbsnews.com/news/doj-disability-opinion-community-care/