The DOJ’s Olmstead Memo Explained: Community Integration, OCR, and What’s Next.
Many special needs parents have never heard of Olmstead. But if you have a disability, love someone who does, or depend on disability services, a DOJ memo released on June 19 could affect your future.
The memo doesn’t change the law. It doesn’t overturn Olmstead. But it does signal that the Department of Justice wants to dramatically narrow one of the most important disability rights decisions in American history. The full PDF is available at the end of this article.
Here’s a brief history of the issue, Friday’s memo and what it could mean for our disabled loved ones. Plus at the end I’ve provided emails to copy and personalize, to send to your legislators.
Once you’re done with this article, and have sent your letters and made your calls, come back and read: OSERS was Dismantled, What’s Next? and No My Son Can’t ‘Just Use Your Work Insurance’ Instead of Medicaid.
The Issue: Background
The 1999 Supreme Court case Olmstead v. L.C. is often called the most important disability rights decision since the passage of Americans with Disabilities Act.
The case began when two women in Georgia, identified as L.C. and E.W., had intellectual and psychiatric disabilities and were living in a state institution. Their treatment professionals agreed that they could receive services in community-based settings rather than remain institutionalized. Despite this, they continued to be kept in the institution.
They sued the state of Georgia, arguing that unnecessary institutionalization violated the ADA. On June 22, 1999, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed. The Court held that unjustified segregation of people with disabilities is discrimination under the ADA and that states must provide services in the most integrated setting appropriate to an individual’s needs when:
- Community placement is appropriate.
- The individual does not oppose the placement.
- The placement can be reasonably accommodated.
The decision established what is commonly known as the “Olmstead mandate”—the principle that people with disabilities have the right to receive services and supports in community settings rather than being unnecessarily isolated in institutions. Since 1999, Olmstead has been used to expand access to community living, integrated employment, and inclusive services for people with disabilities across the United States.
In IEP terms, I’ve often heard it referred to as “like LRE for adulthood.”
The DOJ Olmstead Memo
On Friday, June 19, 2026, a memo from the Department of Justice was shared widely across the internet.
The DOJ memo does not have the power overturn Olmstead v. L.C.. What it does is dramatically change how the federal government says Olmstead should be interpreted.
For nearly 30 years, Olmstead has generally been understood to mean that states must provide services to people with disabilities in the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs. That interpretation became known as the “integration mandate” and has been used to support home-based services, community programs, supported living, and efforts to prevent unnecessary institutionalization.
The new DOJ Office of Legal Counsel memo argues that this common interpretation goes too far. According to the memo:
- Olmstead held only that a state cannot institutionalize a person without adequate justification.
- The decision did not create a broad federal requirement that states provide community-based services.
- Federal disability laws prohibit discrimination, but do not necessarily require states to fund or provide services in community settings instead of institutional settings.
The memo even acknowledges that this interpretation is “out of step with the common understanding” that federal courts and prior administrations have followed for decades.
Who Is Affected?
This affects:
- Children receiving Medicaid waivers
- Adults receiving community-based supports
- People with intellectual disabilities
- People with autism
- People with mental health disabilities
- People receiving home care instead of institutional care
- Anyone who believes disabled people belong in their communities
Why This Matters Even If You Have Never Heard of Olmstead
Most people had never heard of IDEA until their child needed special education. Most people had never heard of Section 504 until they needed accommodations.
Most people have never heard of Olmstead. But millions of disabled Americans have benefited from it. And, it has prevented the abuse of disabled people–which was widespread in institutions prior to Olmstead. Two documentaries about this, including one by Geraldo Rivera, were a driving force behind getting disabled people out of institutions.
What Special Needs Families Everywhere Fear
If courts eventually adopt the DOJ’s new interpretation, states could have much more flexibility to rely on institutions, nursing facilities, psychiatric hospitals, or other segregated settings rather than providing services that allow people with disabilities to live in their homes and communities. Disability rights advocates argue that this would undermine one of the core civil rights protections established by Olmstead.
One important point: the memo itself is not law. Olmstead remains controlling Supreme Court precedent. The memo is simply the current DOJ’s legal position and may influence future litigation, enforcement decisions, and ongoing court cases challenging the integration mandate.
In one sentence: the DOJ is now arguing that Olmstead prohibits unjustified institutionalization, but does not require states to provide community-based services whenever those services are appropriate, a significant departure from how Olmstead has been understood and enforced since 1999.
Two Important Players
The memo was written by Lanora Petitt, which is relevant. Lanora Pettit is a lawyer who currently serves as Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), the office that provides legal opinions to the executive branch.
Before joining DOJ, Pettit worked in the office of Ken Paxton as Principal Deputy Solicitor General. She joined the Trump administration’s DOJ in early 2025 as Deputy Assistant Attorney General in OLC. Her work in Texas focused on issues including border security, election litigation, and constitutional law. During his tenure, Paxton faced felony securities fraud indictments, an FBI investigation, whistleblower allegations from his own staff, and impeachment by the Texas House.
Lanora Pettit is not a disability policy expert who spent her career advancing community inclusion. She is a conservative appellate attorney and Justice Department official whose legal memo argues for a much narrower reading of Olmstead than disability advocates, prior administrations of both parties, and many federal courts have embraced for nearly three decades.
Now, back to Olmstead 1999. In Olmstead v. L.C., it was Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the principal dissent, joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice Scalia.
His dissent was primarily a statutory interpretation argument: he argued that the ADA’s prohibition on discrimination did not, in his view, require states to move people from institutions into community settings simply because community placement was available. Another notable theme in the dissent is his skepticism that segregation itself is discriminatory.
Many disability-rights advocates view the dissent as deeply hostile to the ADA’s integration mandate because it rejects the idea that unnecessary segregation is itself discrimination. The majority, by contrast, held that unjustified institutional isolation can constitute disability discrimination.
Over the years and cases, Justice Thomas has often favored:
- A narrower reading of the ADA’s text.
- Greater deference to existing institutional rules and practices.
- More skepticism toward interpretations that require organizations to change policies or structures to accommodate disabled people.
Disability-rights advocates frequently argue that this approach undermines the ADA because many barriers faced by disabled people can only be removed through policy changes and accommodations. He consistently resists expanding the obligations that the ADA places on employers, governments, and public accommodations. While he frames his position as faithful statutory interpretation, the practical effect is to narrow the scope of disability rights and accommodations.
Are DOJ memos even relevant?
Yes. And no.
A DOJ memo is not a law. It’s not a regulation. It doesn’t overturn a Supreme Court decision. And it doesn’t automatically change anyone’s rights. But DOJ memos can be incredibly influential.
Here’s why:
- DOJ lawyers use them when deciding whether to bring cases.
- DOJ lawyers use them when deciding whether to continue defending existing positions in court.
- Federal agencies often adjust their enforcement priorities to align with them.
- Judges sometimes find them persuasive, especially when the law is ambiguous.
- State governments may point to them when defending policies that previously would have been challenged.
In the Olmstead context, the memo’s biggest immediate effect is probably not on families today. It’s on future litigation.
For example, if a state is sued for unnecessarily segregating people with disabilities, the DOJ traditionally might have filed a statement supporting a broad interpretation of Olmstead. Under this memo, DOJ could instead argue for a much narrower interpretation.
Think of it this way: Olmstead is the Supreme Court decision.
The DOJ memo is the referee announcing, “From now on, we’re interpreting that rulebook differently.”
The referee can’t rewrite the rulebook. But the referee can absolutely influence how the game is played.
The memo doesn’t take away anyone’s rights today. What it does is signal that the federal government may no longer defend those rights as aggressively as it has for the past 25 years.
That’s why disability advocates reacted so strongly. Not because the memo changed the law on June 19, but because it announced that the DOJ is changing sides in the debate over what Olmstead means.
OCR under DOJ
Last week, we were told that DOJ would play a larger role in civil rights enforcement traditionally associated with OCR. This week, DOJ released a memo arguing for a narrower interpretation of Olmstead.
Those two events might be unrelated bureaucratic decisions. Or they might be a preview of what disability-rights enforcement will look like going forward: fewer expansive interpretations of civil rights laws, more deference to states and institutions, and a higher bar for families seeking federal intervention.
What Disabled People Stand to Lose
The presumption that community is the preferred option
For decades, Olmstead has been used to argue that people with disabilities should receive services in the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs. It’s worth noting that study after study has shown that supporting disabled people in their community rather than institutionalizing them is cheaper and leads to better outcomes for all.
The DOJ memo argues that Olmstead doesn’t actually require states to provide community-based services. If that view prevails, states may have less legal pressure to expand home- and community-based supports.
Leverage in lawsuits
Many successful disability-rights lawsuits have relied on a broad reading of Olmstead.
The memo signals that the federal government may no longer support those arguments. Families and advocates could find themselves fighting without the DOJ on their side.
Community-based supports
Historically, Olmstead has been used to challenge:
- Unnecessary nursing home placements
- Institutionalization of people with intellectual disabilities
- Segregated day programs
- Overreliance on psychiatric facilities
- Waiting lists for community services
A narrower interpretation could make those challenges more difficult.
Integrated employment opportunities
Olmstead has also been used to support employment in community settings rather than segregated workshops.
A weaker integration mandate could affect future efforts to expand competitive integrated employment.
The direction of disability rights policy
This may be the biggest issue. The memo doesn’t just affect one case. It signals a shift in philosophy…..from “How do we help people live in the community?” to “What is the minimum the law requires us to do?”
The greatest thing disabled people stand to lose is not a specific service. It’s the legal principle that disability services should be built around inclusion in community life rather than segregation from it. For nearly 30 years, Olmstead has pushed the country toward greater integration. This memo pulls in the opposite direction.
Next Steps
This memo is not the end of the story. Watch for future lawsuits, DOJ enforcement decisions, OCR actions, and state policy changes that rely on this interpretation. It is essential that all of us celebrate the Olmstead decision, which is June 22. Flood your legislators with email and calls on this day. But even if you find this article after that….still do it!
The people most likely to influence the future of Olmstead are not politicians. They’re disabled people and families willing to tell their stories. Every major disability-rights victory—from IDEA to the ADA to Olmstead itself—happened because people affected by these policies made themselves impossible to ignore.
- Contact your two Senators, find their information here.
- Contact your one Representative in Congress, find their information here.
- Email the author of the memo: lanora.pettit@usdoj.gov
If your goal is to oppose the DOJ’s interpretation of Olmstead, Congress is only one piece of the puzzle.
You can also contact:
Your Governor
Governors oversee Medicaid programs, developmental disability services, state hospitals, and many of the systems affected by Olmstead.
A governor who supports community integration can continue investing in home- and community-based services even if the federal government changes its position.
Your State Attorney General
Many state attorneys general file amicus briefs in major disability-rights cases.
If enough AGs publicly reject the DOJ’s interpretation, it can influence future litigation.
Your State Legislators
State representatives and state senators often have more direct control over disability services than Congress does.
They control state budgets that fund:
- Medicaid waiver programs
- Community supports
- Developmental disability services
- Mental health services
- Employment programs
State Protection and Advocacy Agencies (P&As)
Every state has a federally designated Protection and Advocacy organization. You can find all of them through that link.
Examples include:
- Disability Rights Pennsylvania
- Disability Rights California
- Disability Rights Texas
These organizations were created specifically to protect the rights of people with disabilities and are often involved in Olmstead litigation.
Disability Organizations
National organizations often coordinate advocacy campaigns and legal responses:
- The Arc
- Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund
- National Disability Rights Network
- Autistic Self Advocacy Network
- American Association of People with Disabilities
I strongly advise you to reach out to the specific organization that supports the disability your family experiences, and lend your voice to their choir, in addition to doing individual letters. There is strength in numbers.
Federal Agency Leadership
Depending on how OCR and DOJ responsibilities evolve, comments and concerns can be directed to:
- The U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division, contact them here
- The U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights (they’re still open and you can find their information here) OCR@ed.gov
- Federal rulemaking and public comment opportunities
The Media
This is often overlooked. Most people have never heard of Olmstead.
Personal stories from:
- People who avoided institutionalization
- Families using Medicaid waivers
- Adults living independently with supports
- Students included in neighborhood schools
can be far more persuasive than legal arguments. Find your local news agencies on Facebook, Instagram, Tiktok and Threads. Try tagging them with an @ on social media, with something like: Hey @ReporterName,
Hey @Name, the DOJ just released a memo that could weaken disability rights protections that have existed for nearly 30 years. Is anyone covering this? My family is affected and I’d love to share my story. #Olmstead #DisabilityRights
Sample Letter to Send
[Date]
Dear [Elected Official],
I am writing to express my concern regarding the Department of Justice’s recent memorandum reinterpreting the Supreme Court’s 1999 Olmstead decision.
For nearly three decades, Olmstead has served as a cornerstone of disability rights in America. The decision affirmed that people with disabilities should receive services in the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs and helped move our country away from unnecessary segregation and institutionalization.
The new DOJ memo adopts a much narrower interpretation of Olmstead. While the memo does not change the law, it signals a significant shift in how the federal government may approach disability rights enforcement going forward.
As a constituent, I am concerned about what this could mean for individuals with disabilities who rely on community-based services, supported living arrangements, integrated employment opportunities, and other programs that make full participation in society possible.
People with disabilities should not have to fight to remain part of their communities. They should not have to fear losing access to services that allow them to live, work, learn, and participate alongside their nondisabled peers.
I urge you to:
• Publicly affirm your support for the principles established in Olmstead.
• Oppose efforts that weaken community integration protections for people with disabilities.
• Support policies and funding that expand access to home- and community-based services.
• Ensure that disability rights remain a priority in federal and state enforcement efforts.
The disability community has made tremendous progress since 1999. We cannot afford to move backward.
Thank you for your time and attention to this important issue.
Sincerely,
[Name]
[City, State]
CALLING AN ELECTED OFFICIAL ABOUT THE OLMSTEAD MEMO
Hello,
My name is [Name], and I’m a constituent from [City].
I’m calling because I’m concerned about the Department of Justice’s recent memo that adopts a much narrower interpretation of the Supreme Court’s Olmstead decision.
Olmstead is one of the most important disability rights decisions in our nation’s history. For nearly 30 years, it has helped ensure that people with disabilities can receive services in their communities instead of being unnecessarily segregated or institutionalized.
I’m asking [Senator/Representative/Governor/Attorney General] to publicly support the principles of Olmstead and oppose any efforts that weaken community integration protections for people with disabilities.
[Optional Personal Story]
My [child/family member/I] rely on disability services and supports. The ability to live, learn, work, and participate in the community is not an abstract legal issue for our family—it’s part of daily life.
I’d like to know:
- Is [official’s name] aware of the DOJ memo?
- Does [official’s name] support the integration principles established by Olmstead?
- Will [official’s name] take any action regarding this issue?
Thank you for your time. I’d appreciate a response from the office.
My name is [Name], and my zip code is [Zip Code].
Olmstead is still the law.
But this memo signals that the Department of Justice wants courts and agencies to view disability rights differently than they have for nearly 30 years.
You do not need to become a civil rights attorney this week, or ever. Or struggle to read and interpret a DOJ memo or a SCOTUS decision about disabilities.
You do need to know that disability rights protections are only as strong as the people willing to defend them.
Whether that effort succeeds remains to be seen. For now, stay informed, pay attention, and make your voice heard.
DOJ Memo about Olmstead
If you are looking for the actual DOJ memo about Olmstead and other disability issues, here it is. I downloaded this from the DOJ website.