DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ACTIONS THREATEN RETURN TO UNNECESSARY INSTITUTIONALIZATION
In 1999, in a case called Olmstead v. L.C., the U.S. Supreme Court interpreted the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to prohibit the unjustified institutionalization of people with disabilities, and required states to provide disability services in the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs (subject to some limitations). This requirement is generally referred to as the “integration mandate”. As described by Congresswoman Mary Gay Scanlon:
“For nearly three decades, the Olmstead decision has been a North Star to ensure that individuals with disabilities have the right to remain in their communities with access to support and services, instead of being forced into institutional settings.”
This summer, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) reinterpreted Olmstead, opining in June that it does not require states to provide integrated settings, announcing in July that it will not enforce an “integration mandate”, and asking a court in August to approve a settlement with several states that would require it to vacate certain regulations that require integration. While the ADA and the Olmstead decision remain the law of the land, the DOJ’s refusal to enforce the integration mandate, especially combined with the massive federal cuts to Medicaid which pays for most community-based disability services, creates a grave threat to the disability community. As starkly stated by former Acting Administrator for the Administration for Community Living, Allison Barkoff, "It is now the position of the United States government that people with disabilities don't have a right to be part of their communities." (1)
In July, 100 members of Congress wrote a letter to the DOJ demanding it rescind its opinion. The lawmakers wrote:
“In enacting the ADA, Congress explicitly found that “historically, society has tended to isolate and segregate individuals with disabilities” and determined that such segregation constitutes a serious and pervasive form of discrimination. The ADA was designed not merely to prohibit intentional exclusion, but to ensure that people with disabilities have meaningful opportunities to live, work, learn, and participate fully in community life as full members of their communities.
*****
For more than 25 years, federal courts across the country, Republican and Democratic administrations alike, the Department of Justice, and Congress have interpreted and implemented the Olmstead decision to require states and public entities to provide services in integrated settings when appropriate. This long-accepted interpretation has enabled hundreds of thousands of Americans with disabilities to avoid harmful and unnecessary institutionalization and remain connected to their families, schools, workplaces, neighborhoods, and chosen communities. The Department’s recent opinion rejects this settled understanding and threatens to undermine one of the most important civil rights protections for people with disabilities.”
On August 6, Congresswomen Dingell and Scanlon introduced a resolution condemning the opinion. A copy of the resolution can be found here.
With the nation’s executive leadership taking such a massive step back from its integration enforcement obligations, it becomes clear that impact will vary from state to state. “Because states retain independent obligations under the ADA and their own laws, the practical effect will likely differ significantly depending on where someone lives and how their state responds…[s]ome states may review their programs, including eligibility requirements, service limits, waiver programs, provider networks, or funding. (2)
The impact of reduced or nonexistent pressure on states to support or expand integrated settings will undoubtedly be felt by children and their families, particularly those with the most complex needs. “At a time when families across the country already struggle to access behavioral health services, in-home supports, and community-based care, this new opinion moves policy in a harmful and disturbing wrong direction.” (3) Already stretched thin, parents will need to increasingly turn to alternative avenues of advocacy, including state complaints, litigation, and political engagement to protect their rights and those of their children.
For the time being, Pennsylvania has expressed its continued commitment to protecting the rights of people with disabilities to community living. In an August, 2026 letter to Pennsylvanians with disabilities, families, advocates, and allies, Governor Shapiro wrote, “No matter what changes may come at the federal level, Pennsylvania's commitment under my Administration will not change. We will continue pursuing the principles of the ADA and the Olmstead decision, protect the rights of people with disabilities, and support opportunities for Pennsylvanians to live with dignity, choice, and independence in their communities.” (4)
For the DOJ documents, advocacy tools, media coverage, and the latest developments, visit The Arc of the United States’ DOJ Olmstead enforcement resource hub.