DOJ Takes Formal Action to Roll Back Olmstead Protections for Disabled Children.

And here we go. It took just a few weeks for the DOJ’s change on Olmstead to move from “this is something disability families should be watching” to “this is affecting an actual court case.”

And this isn’t some obscure case with no connection to families like ours. This case is about medically complex children, the services they receive at home, and whether states can be held accountable when a lack of those services puts children at risk of being institutionalized.

On August 13, the DOJ asked a federal appeals court to essentially undo a decision it had previously fought for, and the reason it gave was its new position on Olmstead.

So yeah. When I said the Olmstead announcement was a big deal, this is why. This court filing shows what the DOJ’s change on Olmstead could look like in practice. I just spent the morning watching videos, reading the filing and the history, and updating this post–as this is changing quickly.

The Florida case involves medically complex children who receive Medicaid services. The federal government had argued that Florida was not providing enough care to some children in their homes and communities. As a result, some children were unnecessarily placed in institutions, while others were at serious risk of being institutionalized. The federal government argued that this violated Title II of the ADA and the protections established under Olmstead.

Timeline of Olmstead Events

1999: The Supreme Court decides Olmstead v. L.C. :The Supreme Court rules that unjustified institutionalization of people with disabilities can constitute discrimination under Title II of the ADA. The decision becomes a cornerstone of disability civil rights and the right to receive services in integrated community settings when appropriate.

June 22, 2011: DOJ issues its Olmstead Guidance: The Department of Justice publishes guidance explaining how it interprets and enforces the ADA’s integration mandate after Olmstead. Importantly, the guidance says protections can apply not only to people already institutionalized, but also to people who are at serious risk of unnecessary institutionalization.

July 14, 2023: Federal court rules against Florida: The DOJ had sued Florida over Medicaid services for children with medical complexity. The federal government argued that Florida was not providing some families with enough at-home care, resulting in children being unnecessarily institutionalized or placed at serious risk of institutionalization. After a trial, the federal district court found Florida liable under Olmstead and ordered system-wide changes.

2024: The Supreme Court decides Loper Bright: In Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the Supreme Court changed the rules surrounding how courts treat federal agencies’ interpretations of statutes. This later becomes part of DOJ’s stated reason for reconsidering its Olmstead Guidance.

March 2026: The Eleventh Circuit largely upholds the ruling against Florida. A divided federal appeals court generally affirms the lower court’s findings and most of its injunction. Importantly, the court agrees that Title II can apply to children who are at serious risk of institutionalization, even if they have not yet been institutionalized. The court states that “the risk of institutionalization may constitute discrimination.”

May 29, 2026: Florida asks for another review. Florida petitions the Eleventh Circuit for rehearing en banc, meaning it asks the full appeals court to reconsider the panel’s decision. Florida specifically challenges the portion involving children who are at risk of institutionalization.

June 18, 2026: DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) issued a formal legal opinion taking a much more aggressive position than the later July notice. OLC concluded that neither Title II of the ADA nor Section 504 creates an “integration mandate” requiring states to provide services in the most integrated setting appropriate. It also argued that the Supreme Court’s Olmstead decision itself did not establish such a statutory requirement.

June 24, 2026: A Senate resolution responds directly to the June 18 opinion, condemns it, and calls on DOJ to rescind it. The resolution also specifically says the DOJ opinion does not overrule the ADA, Section 504, or the Supreme Court’s Olmstead decision.

July 20, 2026: DOJ announces a major change in its Olmstead position. DOJ announces that it will revisit its Olmstead Guidance in light of the Supreme Court’s Loper Bright decision. More importantly, DOJ says that while it conducts that review, it “will not rely upon the Olmstead Guidance in its enforcement of Title II of the ADA.” Read this part twice: DOJ is reconsidering its guidance. Olmstead itself is a Supreme Court decision. The July announcement did not repeal, rescind or overturn Olmstead.

August 13, 2026: The DOJ’s policy change reaches an actual Olmstead case. DOJ takes the next concrete step in United States v. Florida, asking the Eleventh Circuit to vacate its March opinion and remand the case. DOJ says that on remand it intends to seek termination or modification of the injunction insofar as it rests on the “at-risk” theory. (sorry, that part I took from Threads, which is why it’s clunky legal language) The United States files an “Unopposed Motion to Vacate Opinion and Remand” in United States v. Florida (PDF of this filing is below, scroll down a bit). DOJ asks the Eleventh Circuit to vacate its previous opinion and send the case back to the district court because the federal government has changed its position.

The DOJ Changed and So Did Its Priorities

When a new presidential administration takes office, it also brings a new Department of Justice. The laws themselves don’t automatically change, and neither do Supreme Court decisions. But the DOJ’s priorities, legal interpretations and decisions about which cases it will pursue absolutely can (and do!) change.

That’s no surprise here. The DOJ that originally brought this case against Florida argued that the ADA protects medically complex children from unnecessary institutionalization, and from being placed at serious risk of institutionalization. The current DOJ is now taking a different position on how it will enforce those protections.

The federal government initially won much of the case, but it was a different DOJ with different priorities. Then, a federal appeals court agreed that Title II can protect children who are not yet institutionalized but are at serious risk of institutionalization. In other words, families should not necessarily have to wait until a child is actually placed in an institution before the ADA can protect them.

But the Department of Justice has now changed its position. After announcing that it would reconsider its Olmstead guidance and would no longer rely on that guidance when enforcing Title II, the DOJ asked the appeals court to throw out its previous decision and send the case back to the lower court.

Even more concerning, the DOJ says that when the case returns to the lower court, it plans to ask the court to end or modify portions of the order protecting children who are at risk of institutionalization. The DOJ says it no longer wants to pursue that part of the Title II case against Florida.

This does not mean that Olmstead disappeared or that the ADA was repealed. It does mean that the federal government is changing how it intends to enforce these protections. And for families who depend on home- and community-based services to keep their disabled children at home rather than in institutions, this is very important to watch and advocate for.

This is why the DOJ’s announcement about Olmstead is such a big deal. We are already seeing the federal government change its position in an actual disability rights case, and this filing was submitted August 13, 2026, just weeks after the DOJ announced its change in Olmstead policy.

Does This Mean Disabled Kids Are Going to Be Institutionalized?

Do I think disabled kids are suddenly going to be rounded up and sent to institutions? No. That’s not what I’m saying, and I don’t think catastrophizing helps anyone understand what’s actually happening.

What concerns me is what happens when you start removing or weakening the protections that help disabled people remain in their homes and communities. Policy priorities affect enforcement, and enforcement priorities affect where governments choose to put resources (money!). If community-based services become harder to obtain or less adequately funded, families may technically still have “choices,” but those choices can become institution or nothing.

Which is probably the goal here–if your choices are to care for your child forever, with no support at home, or choose an institution, we know what most of us will choose. At least until our own aging bodies leave us with no choice.

And while I cannot say that is the stated goal of this DOJ action, we as special needs parents should be concerned that it could be the practical result of continuing down this path. The Florida case itself is about families who allegedly could not get enough at-home care, leaving medically complex children institutionalized or at serious risk of institutionalization.

And that’s something that the disability community and allies have been trying to protect (and were winning in the courts) for decades.

DOJ Olmstead Filing PDF

Here is the filing if you wish to read it.

---

NOTE: Everything below this point was published on June 21, 2026.

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.

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:

1. Community placement is appropriate.
2. The individual does not oppose the placement.
3. 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.

1. Contact your two Senators, find their information here.
2. Contact your one Representative in Congress, find their information here.
3. 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:

1. Is [official’s name] aware of the DOJ memo?
2. Does [official’s name] support the integration principles established by Olmstead?
3. 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.