Governors From 18 States Push Back Against Federal Efforts to Undermine Disability Rights and Community-Based Care

Governors representing 18 states have formally urged the U.S. Department of Justice to reverse its recent course and abandon policy maneuvers that threaten to roll back decades of progress guaranteeing the rights of individuals with disabilities to live and receive services within their local communities.

In a joint letter addressed to U.S. Attorney General Todd W. Blanche, the state leaders mounted a bipartisan defense of community integration, taking direct aim at a contentious legal memo issued in June by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel. The federal memo explicitly questions longstanding judicial and administrative interpretations of Olmstead v. L.C., the landmark 1999 U.S. Supreme Court decision that established the legal right of individuals with mental and physical disabilities to receive care in community-based settings rather than being subjected to unnecessary institutional isolation.

The pushback from state executives highlights a growing tension between state-level administration of health and human services and shifting federal legal interpretations. Organizers and signatories emphasize that the foundational principles of disability integration transcend partisan lines, underscoring the ongoing battle over the interpretation of civil rights legislation enacted more than three decades ago.

The Genesis of the Controversy: The June Office of Legal Counsel Memo

The current dispute centers squarely on a legal document published in June by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC). The memo put forth an aggressive reinterpretation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Supreme Court’s ruling in Olmstead v. L.C., arguing that individuals with disabilities do not possess an enforceable federal right to demand community-based services over institutional care.

Legal scholars and advocates noted immediately that the OLC memo marked a sharp deviation from the executive branch’s established enforcement posture, which for over two decades had interpreted the ADA and Olmstead as mandating that states minimize unnecessary institutionalization. Following the release of the memo, the Justice Department moved swiftly to alter its litigating position in several active federal disability rights cases, prompting alarm across the advocacy community.

In response, prominent legal advocacy organizations—most notably the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law—began mobilizing state officials. The organizations drafted formal commitments asking state leaders to pledge that, regardless of shifting federal enforcement priorities, their respective administrations would uphold the core tenets of the Olmstead decision and protect existing community-based infrastructure.

A Bipartisan Coalition Takes a Stand

The resulting gubernatorial letter was spearheaded by New York Governor Kathy Hochul and signed by an expansive, cross-country coalition of state leaders. The roster of signatories features governors from a diverse array of states: Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Washington, and Wisconsin.

In their correspondence, the governors emphasized that the federal government’s pivot jeopardizes the stability of state-run health and social services systems.

“For more than 25 years, the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Olmstead v. L.C. has built on the commitment of the Americans with Disabilities Act and reinforced the principle that people with disabilities should have the opportunity to live, work, receive services, and participate in their communities rather than being unnecessarily segregated in institutional settings,” the governors wrote. “We simply cannot risk reversing the progress this country has made in ensuring Americans with disabilities have meaningful choices about where and how they live their lives.”

The state executives explicitly framed the issue as nonpartisan, reminding the attorney general that the ADA was signed into law in 1990 by President George H.W. Bush, a Republican. Over the subsequent decades, successive administrations of both political parties have worked in cooperation with state governments to expand home- and community-based services (HCBS), reduce institutional populations, and foster inclusive living environments.

“We strongly oppose any federal actions that would weaken protections against unnecessary segregation or diminish the right of people with disabilities to receive services in the most integrated settings appropriate to meet their needs, consistent with established Olmstead precedent,” the letter states. “Community integration is not an abstract legal concept. It means having a home, being able to work, attend school, shop, worship, build relationships, and participate in an ordinary civic life.”

Historical Background: The Impact of Olmstead v. L.C.

To understand the gravity of the current conflict, it is necessary to examine the historical trajectory of disability rights jurisprudence in the United States.

Prior to the enactment of the ADA, hundreds of thousands of Americans with developmental, intellectual, and psychiatric disabilities were routinely placed in large, state-run residential institutions. These facilities frequently isolated residents from their families, restricted their personal autonomy, and, in many cases, exposed them to substandard living conditions and inadequate care.

The passage of the ADA in 1990 provided the statutory framework to challenge such segregation, prohibiting discrimination against individuals on the basis of disability. However, the definitive legal turning point arrived in 1999 with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Olmstead v. L.C.

The case originated in Georgia, where two women with mental disabilities and substance abuse issues were voluntarily admitted to a psychiatric unit in a state-run hospital. Even after treating professionals determined that the patients were ready for placement in a community-based program, the state kept them institutionalized for years due to administrative and budgetary inertia.

In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that unjustified institutional isolation of persons with disabilities constitutes unlawful discrimination under Title II of the ADA. The high court held that states are required to provide community-based treatment for individuals with disabilities when treatment professionals determine that such placement is appropriate, the affected persons do not oppose it, and the placement can be reasonably accommodated, taking into account the resources available to the state.

The Olmstead decision catalyzed a profound transformation across the nation. Over the ensuing 25 years, state governments—often prompted by federal civil rights enforcement actions and private lawsuits—systematically downsized or closed large institutions. Billions of dollars were redirected toward home- and community-based waiver programs, supported employment initiatives, and independent living arrangements.

Perspectives from Advocacy Organizations and Legal Experts

Disability rights advocates have expressed deep concern that a recalcitrant federal agency could embolden states looking to cut budgets by reducing community-based service slots or expanding institutional capacity.

Jennifer Mathis, deputy director at the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law and former deputy assistant attorney general for the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division during the Biden administration, underscored the urgency of securing commitments from state governors.

“This effort is critically important because the disability community needs assurance from states that they will not attack the rights of disabled people to live in their own homes and communities, as the federal government has done,” Mathis said.

Mathis stressed that while the executive branch can alter its litigation strategy and issue internal advisory memos, the underlying federal statutes and Supreme Court case law remain entirely intact.

“The DOJ Olmstead memo is not the law, and we are asking states to keep it that way by committing not to engage in these types of attacks themselves,” she added.

Advocates point out that the federal government’s attempt to rewrite its legal obligations under the ADA does not invalidate private rights of action or eliminate court orders that have governed state institutional systems for decades. However, a passive or hostile federal enforcement apparatus removes a crucial layer of federal oversight that has historically compelled non-compliant states to invest in community integration infrastructure.

Broader Implications and Future Outlook

The standoff between the 18 governors and the U.S. Department of Justice carries significant financial, legal, and operational implications for the administration of social safety net programs nationwide.

1. Fiscal Pressures on State Budgets

Home- and community-based services are typically funded through a combination of state appropriations and federal Medicaid matching funds (primarily via Section 1915(c) and 1915(i) waivers of the Social Security Act). Maintaining comprehensive community-based networks requires substantial administrative overhead, workforce recruitment, and infrastructure investments. If the federal government signals that it will no longer enforce integration mandates, some state legislatures facing fiscal constraints might be tempted to curtail spending on HCBS programs in favor of cheaper, congregate care models—even though such shifts may run contrary to state policies and existing judicial consent decrees.

2. Fragmentation of Civil Rights Enforcement

Should the Justice Department continue to distance itself from Olmstead enforcement, the burden of protecting community integration rights will fall disproportionately on private advocacy groups, legal aid organizations, and state attorneys general. This could lead to a fragmented legal landscape where the civil rights protections afforded to a citizen with a disability depend heavily on the geographic state in which they reside.

3. Potential for Protracted Litigation

The divergence between the executive branch’s legal stance and the positions held by a substantial bloc of state governors sets the stage for complex legal battles. Private plaintiffs and advocacy organizations are likely to challenge any federal administrative actions that seek to weaken regulatory standards governing community integration. Simultaneously, states that have committed to upholding Olmstead principles may find themselves at odds with federal agencies over grant conditions, audit findings, or programmatic compliance reviews.

As of publication, the U.S. Department of Justice has not formally responded to the governors’ letter or issued a public statement addressing the criticisms raised by the bipartisan coalition. Meanwhile, advocacy groups continue their campaign to secure formal Olmstead commitments from additional state executives, ensuring that the debate over the right to community living remains at the forefront of the national civil rights agenda.