���Ķ���vlog

Today’s Mental Health Weekly features a cover story on the storm created by the Trump Administration’s recently released memorandum claiming that states do not have to observe long standing Supreme Court’s Olmstead requirements to serve people with disabilities in the most integrated community settings.

This would be a reversal of the requirements currently listed on the of US Department of Health and Human Services.  

The Alliance joined countless disability rights advocates and groups across the nation in promptly condemning DOJ’s action. The issue has generated significant attention from key figures in NYS government, , Dr. Ann Sullivan, state Commissioner of the , Willow Baer Commissioner of the , and Kim Hill, the Governor’s all issuing strong public statements reaffirming their commitment to the Olmstead decision and the rights of people with disabilities to live in the community.

The Alliance is deeply grateful to the Governor and her team for weighing in, and for all of the many initiatives they have implemented towards these ends and, in that spirit, calls on the state to issue its long-awaited Olmstead Plan before the September 30, 2026 meeting of the state’s . More on this in the coming days.

The Alliance will feature a state and national Olmstead related panel at our Annual Conference, “Our Movement Our Moment,” to be held from September 23-25 at a new location at the Albany Marriott. Look later today for updated registration information.

DOJ Memo Sparks Alarm Over Disability Rights and Community Integration
  Mental Health Weekly  June 26, 2026

Mental health and disability advocates are sharply criticizing a U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) legal opinion they say could undermine longstanding protections that allow people with disabilities to live and receive services in their communities rather than in institutional settings. The June 18 memorandum asserts that states are not legally required to provide community- or home-based care to integrate individuals with mental disabilities. The memo was released just days before the 27th anniversary of the Supreme Court’s landmark Olmstead v. L.C. decision on June 22.

The Olmstead v. L.C. decision established that unnecessary institutionalization constitutes discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and affirmed the right of people with disabilities to live and receive services in the most integrated setting appropriate. The ruling has guided efforts to expand community-based services for more than two decades.

The memorandum, which addresses the “integration mandate” under Section 504, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and the Supreme Court’s Olmstead v. L.C. decision, departs from decades of federal precedent. It contends that neither Section 504 nor the ADA imposes an integration mandate on states in the treatment of individuals with mental health disabilities and questions the prevailing interpretation of Olmstead. Disability and mental health advocates strongly dispute that conclusion.

“This opinion does not change the law or Supreme Court precedent,” Shira Wakschlag, senior executive officer of Legal Advocacy and General Counsel for The Arc, an organization serving people with intellectual and developmental disabilities, told MHW. “But it’s dangerous because rights mean less when the federal government refuses to enforce them.”

Wakschlag added that the DOJ opinion seeks to undermine one of the strongest protections people with disabilities have from being pushed into institutions when they can and want to live in the community. “This could lead states to deprioritize community-based care, particularly in the face of upcoming Medicaid cuts that fund home and community-based services people with disabilities rely on,” she stated.

“For people with disabilities, this is about whether they can get services at home instead of being forced into a facility,” she indicated. “It’s about whether children and adults with disabilities can stay connected to their family, friends, school, work, and community life. It’s about whether people have a meaningful way to protect their rights when a state or system says ‘no.’”

“We think it would be foolish, however, for states to cut community services.
First, the DOJ memo is not the law; Congress, and not agencies, makes laws.”
Jennifer Mathis

The president and CEO of the National Council for Mental Wellbeing also weighed in to the administration’s memorandum. “To argue now that federal courts have misinterpreted the rights of individuals with disabilities to be integrated in their communities without hearing from people and families impacted by this change seems unjust,” Chuck Ingoglia said in a statement.

“We are deeply concerned about the implications that the Justice Department’s interpretation of the law could have on millions of people who rely on it to protect the choices a provider and person make in their treatment journey,” Ingoglia stated. “We must consider the human impact to our nation if we strip long-standing protections from people with disabilities and people with mental health challenges.”

Far-reaching implications
Disability advocates say the memo could have far-reaching implications for how federal disability rights laws are enforced.

The National Disability Rights Network (NDRN) noted that the DOJ enforces Title II of the ADA, while the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services enforces Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. “These federal agencies’ interpretations of these federal civil rights laws — the foundation for Olmstead and legal protections for community integration for people with mental disabilities — are important,” NDRN told MHW. “And the DOJ, in particular, has been instrumental in bringing cases against states that unnecessarily institutionalize and segregate people with mental disabilities.”

Asked what the memo could mean in practical terms, the NDRN pointed to potential risks for people relying on community-based care. “In practical terms for people with mental disabilities who rely on community-based services and supports, legal protections and rights are at risk,” the NDRN stated. With weakened federal enforcement, and a narrower interpretation of Olmstead by these federal agencies, states may feel empowered to invest in more institutional care or decrease funding for community-based services and support, or both, they noted.

NDRN added that while the federal court decisions around the integration mandate and the ADA/Section 504 still stand, the DOJ has discretion in what actions it will or will not take to enforce the ADA in future situations.

Integration mandate
Catherine Johnson, executive director of Disability Rights Iowa, pointed to the broader legal foundation of the integration mandate and its intent under federal law. “The DOJ memo is inconsistent with the 27 years of the integration mandate,” she told MHW. “Congress made clear when it enacted the ADA in 1990 that the law was intended to provide a ‘clear and comprehensive mandate’ to eliminate discrimination against individuals with disabilities.”

Under Title II of the ADA, states are barred from unnecessarily institutionalizing people with disabilities when they can receive care at home or in community settings, Johnson said. “The Supreme Court has reinforced that principle, holding that the ADA and Section 504 require states to provide services in community-based settings when integration is appropriate and doing so is a reasonable accommodation,” she noted.

Johnson added that for the past 27 years, the ADA’s integration mandate — grounded in the Court’s Olmstead decision — has been uniformly understood to require services in the most integrated setting appropriate.

Going forward, complaints related to the integration mandate may not be investigated by the DOJ, she noted. Individuals with disabilities may instead have to rely on private lawsuits to assert their rights in cases involving potential Olmstead violations. That would require finding an attorney with the necessary expertise who is also willing and able to take on such cases — something that can be challenging, she added.

Bazelon weighs in
Jennifer Mathis, the deputy director of the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, raised concerns that the policy stance could weaken community-based services and supports. “Aside from the prospect of the federal government walking away from its own significant enforcement efforts, we are concerned that states may wrongly assume that the DOJ memo means the law has changed, and that they may be tempted to cut home and community services as a way to address budget shortfalls resulting from the Medicaid cuts in H.R. 1,” Mathis told MHW.

Mathis added, “We think it would be foolish, however, for states to cut community services. First, the DOJ memo is not the law; Congress, and not agencies, makes laws. Further, cutting community services is highly likely to result in increased institutionalization, which will not only damage lives but will cost states many times what it costs to serve people in the community.”