DOJ Files Olmstead Briefs in California and Illinois Cases
Author: U.S. Department of Justice
Published: 2010/07/21 - Updated: 2026/05/17
Publication Type: Announcement
Contents: Synopsis - Definition - Introduction - Main - Insights, Updates - Related Publications
Synopsis: This report describes briefs filed by the U.S. Department of Justice in two federal cases - Napper v. County of Sacramento in California and Hampe v. Hamos in Illinois - as part of its enforcement of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Supreme Court's ruling in Olmstead v. L.C., which requires states to end unnecessary institutionalization of people with disabilities and provide services in the most integrated setting appropriate. The California brief argues that Sacramento County's redesign of its outpatient mental health system places thousands of Medi-Cal recipients with mental illness at substantial risk of being pushed into institutional care, while the Illinois brief supports class certification for young adults with severe disabilities who have aged out of a home and community-based Medicaid waiver and may be forced into institutions to receive medically necessary services. Authored by the Justice Department and including statements from Assistant Attorney General Thomas E. Perez, the publication is a useful reference for people with disabilities, family caregivers, Medicaid recipients, disability rights attorneys, and policy advocates tracking federal Olmstead enforcement.
- Topic Definition: Olmstead Decision
The Olmstead decision refers to the 1999 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Olmstead v. L.C., which held that the unjustified institutional isolation of people with disabilities is a form of unlawful discrimination under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Court ruled that public entities must provide community-based services to individuals with mental and physical disabilities when such services are appropriate, when the affected individuals do not oppose community placement, and when the placement can reasonably be accommodated, taking into account the resources available to the state and the needs of others receiving disability services. The decision has shaped federal and state policy on Medicaid waivers, mental health systems, and long-term services and supports for more than two decades.
Introduction
Briefs Filed in California and Illinois Supporting the Olmstead Decision
The Justice Department announced it has filed briefs in cases in California and Illinois as part of its continuing effort to enforce civil rights laws that require states to end discrimination against and unnecessary segregation of persons with disabilities. The briefs were filed as the department prepares to celebrate the 20th Anniversary of the enactment of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
The briefs allege that public entities in both California and Illinois administer their health care systems for Medicaid-eligible individuals in a manner that violates the ADA and the Supreme Court's decision in Olmstead v. L.C. The Olmstead ruling requires states to eliminate unnecessary institutionalization of individuals with disabilities and provide those individuals with services in the most integrated setting appropriate.
Main Content
The department's briefs follow a series of recent filings in Florida, Illinois, New Jersey, New York, Georgia and Arkansas that demonstrate the administration's increased enforcement efforts following President Obama's proclamation of the "Year of Community Living."
"Unnecessary institutionalization deprives individuals of the opportunity to live their lives as they choose. We are working tirelessly to end the unjustified institutionalization of individuals with disabilities," said Thomas E. Perez, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division. "The department is committed to ensuring that community-based services are provided to enable individuals with disabilities to live fully integrated lives in their communities."
The Justice Department's brief in Napper v. County of Sacramento asserts that Sacramento County's redesign of its outpatient mental health service system puts thousands of Medi-Cal, California's Medicaid program, recipients with mental illness at substantial risk of institutionalization in violation of Olmstead's community integration mandate. According to the brief, the plan proposed by the county will decrease the availability of necessary mental health outpatient services, putting plaintiffs at risk of entry into institutional settings. The brief also alleges that the time frame for the new system roll-out puts some persons at risk of institutionalization.
In Illinois, the Justice Department filed a brief in Hampe v. Hamos, supporting the plaintiffs' motion for class certification of a group of young adults with severe disabilities who have "aged out" of a Medicaid program which provides home and community-based services. Under the state regulatory scheme, Illinois restricts eligibility for this program to individuals under the age of 21. Because the adult program to which most of these individuals transfer has significant funding caps and does not provide community services at the same level, plaintiffs may be forced to enter institutions in order to receive the medical services they need to survive or to remain in their homes without adequate medical care. In its brief, the Justice Department states that certification of the proposed class is proper because class actions are an effective means of achieving the systemic reform that is necessary to address community integration claims.
The full and fair enforcement of the ADA and its community integration mandate is a major priority of the Civil Rights Division. During the past year, the department has filed briefs or filed suit in federal court in 18 different cases raising Olmstead issues.
People interested in finding out more about the ADA can call the Justice Department's toll-free ADA Information Line, or access its ADA website where all relevant case filings can be found.
Insights, Analysis, and Developments
Editorial Note: More than two decades after the Olmstead ruling, many states still struggle to deliver community-based services at the level needed to keep people with disabilities out of institutions, and budget pressures on Medicaid programs continue to put that progress at risk. The cases highlighted here illustrate how cuts to outpatient mental health services and rigid age cutoffs in home and community-based waivers can quietly funnel disabled adults toward nursing facilities and other institutional settings, and they show why ongoing federal enforcement remains essential to making the promise of integrated community living a reality.Attribution/Source(s): This quality-reviewed publication was selected for publishing by the editors of Disabled World (DW) due to its relevance to the disability community. Originally authored by U.S. Department of Justice and published on 2010/07/21, this content may have been edited for style, clarity, or brevity.