DOJ Office of Legal Counsel Says States Are Not Required to Provide Community-Based Care for Disabled Americans, Reinterpreting 1999 Supreme Court Ruling

A significant legal shift is unfolding inside the Justice Department. The DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel posted an opinion memo reinterpreting Olmstead v. LC, the 1999 Supreme Court ruling that has anchored disability civil rights for nearly three decades.

What the OLC memo actually says

The opinion, authored by Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Lanora Pettit, argues that the Olmstead decision was narrower than decades of enforcement have assumed, according to CBS News. Specifically, the OLC contends that the Supreme Court did not impose a broad "integration mandate" requiring states to fund home-based or community-based care as an alternative to institutionalization.

The memo also argues, per CBS News, that DOJ's Civil Rights Division has overstepped for 20 years by using consent decrees and enforcement actions to pressure states into deinstitutionalization benchmarks that the Court never actually mandated. The OLC opinion stated that "over the past two decades, DOJ's Civil Rights Division has relied on its integration mandate and Olmstead to pressure states into discharging individuals from mental-health institutions" and has "successfully elicited consent decrees, remedial orders, or out-of-court agreements in nearly a dozen states."

A secondary argument in the memo, reported by Mother Jones, is that Olmstead and related federal civil rights law have contributed to homelessness by steering people away from institutional settings that could otherwise house and treat them.

The legal history the memo is trying to rewrite

Olmstead v. LC originated when two women with mental and intellectual disabilities in Georgia were repeatedly institutionalized because their state would not fund the community-based support they needed to live independently. The Supreme Court held that the state had violated their civil rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act by failing to provide services in the most integrated setting appropriate.

The AAPD noted in a June 18 press release that the Olmstead decision's 27th anniversary falls on June 22, 2026. Courts, Congress, HHS regulations, and DOJ enforcement actions have consistently reinforced the integration mandate interpretation in the years since.

Alison Barkoff, a health law professor at George Washington University who supervised Olmstead enforcement at DOJ under both the Obama and Biden administrations, told NPR: "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. I can't overstate how significant this change in position is."

Barkoff told Mother Jones the administration's legal interpretation "is completely inconsistent with virtually all courts."

The administration's strongest argument

The OLC's position is not invented from nothing. The OLC memo itself acknowledges the novelty of its reading, stating: "We recognize that this view of Olmstead's import is out of step with the common understanding of that decision within the federal courts." The memo draws on the ruling's language around "adequate justification" for institutionalization, arguing that "what counts as adequate justification remains an open question" and that enforcement has always been more aggressive than the ruling justified.

Proponents of a tougher approach to mental illness and homelessness could also argue that purely community-based models have left a significant population without adequate care. The White House has framed its broader homelessness policy around this premise since a July executive order directed agencies to examine long-term care placements for unhoused people with mental health conditions, according to Mother Jones.

The question the memo raises is whether reinterpreting a Supreme Court civil rights ruling is the right mechanism for policy debate.

What legal experts say

Sam Bagenstos, a University of Michigan law professor who served as general counsel for HHS and OMB under Biden, called the memo's homelessness claim "just absurd" in comments to Mother Jones, describing Olmstead as "one of the most effective tools in combating homelessness" by encouraging states to build out mental health and housing services outside institutions.

Bagenstos also flagged a structural concern: the White House directed the Justice Department to produce the document. That chain of command, he told Mother Jones, suggests a possible executive order directing DOJ and HHS to actively roll back anti-institutionalization rules, not merely issue a legal opinion.

Shira Wakschlag of The Arc of the United States called it "a direct threat to decades of progress toward community living," according to NPR.

The American Association of People with Disabilities said in its June 18 press release that the OLC's conclusions about congressional intent in the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act are "unjustified and incorrect" and warned that the memo gives federal and state entities a "green light to take disabled people back" to an era of involuntary institutionalization.

What has and has not changed

The OLC memo is a legal opinion, not a regulation or a law. It does not by itself alter what states must do. Existing consent decrees and court orders remain in force unless actively challenged.

The DOJ did not respond to NPR's request for comment on why it is changing course. The White House did not respond to Mother Jones's request for comment.

What the memo underweights is the weight of court precedent against its position — a point the OLC itself concedes by acknowledging its reading is "out of step with the common understanding of that decision within the federal courts."

Whether the White House follows the memo with an executive order directing HHS and DOJ to withdraw from existing Olmstead consent decrees remains to be seen. In December, DOJ reached an agreement with South Carolina to expand supportive services for people with psychiatric disabilities, according to Mother Jones. Whether that agreement and others like it survive the new OLC posture is unresolved.