Understanding the Department of Justice Memo on Olmstead and Disability Integration
Written by DNWML Community Engagement Coordinator, Eliot Carter
On June 18, 2026, the US Department of Justice announced that they disagreed with a 1999 Supreme Court decision which is now known as the Olmstead decision. Olmstead may not be as famous as the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) or Section 504, but everyone who is a supporter of disability rights and independent living should know about it. It has been the basis for the Money Follows the Person program, which many organizations use to help people living in nursing facilities get back into their homes. It also was used to argue against sheltered workshops, which are places where people with disabilities are sent to work, often for less than the minimum wage, and without the opportunity to have a career. This is because the Olmstead decision said that way the ADA and Section 504 are written means that states need to make sure people with disabilities are integrated into everyday life. This is known as the “integration mandate,” and that is the subject of the memo released by the Department of Justice [1].
Background
The story of the Olmstead decision starts in Georgia in the 1990s with Lois Curtis and Elaine Wilson, two women with mental health and intellectual disabilities. Both women were in a cycle of receiving psychiatric care in hospitals and being discharged without a plan to keep receiving care. While in the hospital, they had to live by the hospital’s rules of when to eat, sleep, play, or go outside. They also received large doses of medications which made them drowsy and sedated. Their doctors thought these women would live better lives if they could stay in the place of their choice while receiving the mental healthcare they needed. However, Georgia did not have a system for paying for in-home support. The two women and their lawyers said this violated the ADA because they were being segregated instead of being accommodated in their communities. They sued the head of Georgia’s Department of Human Resources, Tommy Olmstead, to fight for their right to live in the community.
A District Court in Georgia sided with Curtis and Wilson, and Olmstead appealed the decision, meaning the Supreme Court had to decide if Curtis and Wilson were being discriminated against. On June 22, 1999, in a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court also agreed with Curtis and Wilson. They said that if a person wants to live in the community, their doctors say they can, and it wouldn’t interfere with other disabled people’s services, a person with a disability should not be forced to live in an institution [2]. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 were meant to make it easier for people with disabilities to be included in their community, they argued. This became known as the “integration mandate.” When people with disabilities filed discrimination lawsuits, courts will often debate whether the entity being sued is meeting the integration mandate. This has been typical for decades.
The Memo
This June, the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel released a memo that goes against this standard practice. Part of what it is saying is that Congress never formally passed an “integration mandate,” so they think it is wrong to say that people with disabilities have a right to live in the community under the ADA. Another part of the memo says that they think that the Olmstead decision should only apply to state-run institutions, since that is what the case was about. This memo does not change the law or nullify Olmstead, but it is a sign that the Executive Branch will not step in if people with disabilities are segregated in the way Lois Curtis and Elaine Wilson were, according to a statement from the Arc [3].
This memo fits in with the Executive Order called “Ending Crime and Disorder on America’s Streets” that we wrote about last year [4]. This Executive Order said that the President wants to make it easier to send people with mental illnesses to residential treatment facilities even if they don’t want to go. It acknowledged that there are court decisions that contradict what the President wants and said the Justice Department may try to overturn them. Again, the Olmstead decision has not been overturned, neither through this memo nor the Executive Order. However, no other president has taken a stance like this since Olmstead was decided. The memo even says that the Justice Department knows this is “out of step” with how Olmstead has been interpreted for 27 years.
It has also been about one year since the federal government passed a budget that cuts how much money the states will get for Medicaid. This is important because Medicaid pays for most of the long-term care for Americans with disabilities [5]. Long-term care refers to services like bathing, dressing, housekeeping, and preparing medication that can be provided by a caregiver either in an institution like a nursing home or psychiatric hospital or in one’s home or community. Medicaid law says that states must allow Medicaid to pay for what it costs to stay in an institution. There is not a law that says states must do the same for Home and Community Based Services, even though disability advocates were trying to get a law like that passed for decades (there are programs that allow states to use money that would be used for institutional care to go to someone’s HCBS instead, like Money Follows the Person). When states have less money for Medicaid programs, they will have to stop paying for programs that are not required by law, meaning HCBS will be in danger. So, this memo may also signal that the federal government will not step in if states cut their HCBS programs. But because this is unlike anything that has happened in previous presidencies, we don’t know what the long-term impacts will be.
What’s Next
UPDATE: On June 23 of this year, the US House of Representatives and the US Senate introduced bills that would put the integration mandate into law if passed. The bill numbers are H.R. 9401 and S. 4865. These bills contain language that would make it clear that not providing someone the Home and Community Based Services they are eligible for would be a form of discrimination. It is important to note that these bills would tell the Department of Justice and the Department of Health and Human Services to enforce these rules, and both of those departments are under the control of the president.
When Lois Curtis left Georgia Regional Hospital for the last time, she and her care team didn’t have everything figured out right away. She needed to figure out what type of living situation would work best for her and find staff who understood how to care for people with mental health and intellectual disabilities. She ended up living in an apartment for several years and got help from her “micro board” – the name she gave to her family and caregivers who helped her navigate challenges and plan for the future [6]. This is what is commonly called a Supported Decision-Making arrangement. Supported Decision-Making (SDM) can act as an alternative to guardianship or institutionalization because it helps a person with a disability to keep their rights and live a self-directed life. The Michigan Legislature is considering bills that would tell courts to explore Supported Decision-Making before placing someone under guardianship. If you would like to join Disability Network Michigan in educating our lawmakers about Supported Decision-Making, please stop by the Advocacy booth at our ADA Celebrations! More details here.
These types of state-level protections are important when the federal government changes course suddenly like it has with Olmstead. Last year’s Executive Order that seems to have inspired this memo was based on old ideas and stereotypes of mental illness and disability. It tried to suggest that moving people out of institutions has put us and the public in danger. However, it is important to remember that institutions also put people with disabilities in danger, and that there are many more people who need HCBS who are getting them. 710,000 people were on waiting lists to receive HCBS in 2024 [5]. Many others don’t know that this is an option for them. Others still are eligible but can’t find enough workers to help them. This memo does not address these issues. It tries to draw a link between Olmstead and homelessness, as though the only options for a person with disabilities are to be institutionalized or homeless. We know this isn’t true since our consumers and staff are living proof that independent living is possible. In-home care, accessible transportation, employment opportunities, and Supported Decision-Making arrangements are tools to help people live outside of institutions, which is why Centers for Independent Living have been fighting for them for over 50 years. We will continue to monitor threats to the progress we have made in ensuring inclusion and equal opportunity for all, and we will let our community know what to expect from any legal changes and share ways to fight back against attacks on our rights.
https://www.womenshistory.org/education-resources/biographies/lois-curtis