A recent Department of Justice legal opinion has alarmed disability advocates by challenging decades of federal enforcement that helped move people with disabilities out of institutions and into community-based care.
The memo, issued by the Office of Legal Counsel and authored by Lanora Pettit, says federal disability law does not impose an “integration mandate” requiring states to provide in-home or community services to people with disabilities who need support. Those services — paid largely through Medicaid and often called home- and community-based services (HCBS) — let millions of Americans live, learn, work and receive care in their own homes and communities rather than in large institutions or nursing homes.
Advocates immediately warned the opinion could allow cash-strapped states to cut community services and revert to segregating people with disabilities in institutions. Alison Barkoff, a health law and policy professor at George Washington University who led Olmstead enforcement work in prior administrations, said the memo signals that “people with disabilities don’t have a right to be part of their communities,” calling the shift in the government’s position profound.
National advocacy groups reacted sharply. The American Association of People with Disabilities called the interpretation a threat to 250 years of progress and warned it could open the door to “warehousing people with disabilities out of sight and out of mind in institutions.” The Arc of the United States called the opinion a direct threat to decades of community-living progress.
The memo departs from how courts and federal agencies have long read Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. For years those laws have been interpreted to require states to provide services in the “most integrated setting appropriate,” with institutional care reserved as a last resort. The Supreme Court’s 1999 Olmstead v. L.C. decision affirmed that a state may violate federal disability law by unnecessarily institutionalizing individuals who could be served in the community.
Since Olmstead, both federal enforcement and court rulings have pushed states to rebalance long-term supports toward community-based options. By 2023, roughly 8.4 million Americans were receiving HCBS through Medicaid. Pettit’s memo, however, argues Olmstead merely forbids unjustified institutionalization and does not create a broader duty for states to fund community services. The opinion acknowledges this reading is “out of step with the common understanding” in federal courts.
Why the distinction matters: decades of enforcement rested on the idea that eliminating unnecessary institutionalization requires states to provide alternatives in the community. Advocates and legal experts say removing that federal pressure could let states slash community supports, curtail choice and reduce personal liberty — choices about who people see, where they go, and how they live. Jennifer Mathis of the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law described the real-world impact of institutional life as “deadening.”
The memo arrives while a new lawsuit, Texas v. Kennedy, is challenging the integration mandate itself. By arguing there is no mandate, the Justice Department appears to be siding with states pressing that challenge. Legal experts emphasize the memo does not change the law by itself — Congress and the courts determine legal obligations — but they worry the DOJ may stop pursuing Olmstead-based enforcement.
The opinion also fits a broader policy push from the current administration. An executive order issued in July 2025 aimed at policing homelessness advocated increased use of civil commitment and long-term institutional settings as a way to address public disorder, and some conservative policy groups have promoted institutional approaches to homelessness. The Justice memo includes a footnote suggesting federal disability rules have contributed to chronic homelessness, a claim disputed by many advocates who say Olmstead has helped secure housing and supports for people who were unhoused.
Practical barriers further complicate any move back to large-scale institutionalization: specialized facility capacity is limited, and research shows institutional care can cost more than community-based services. The memo also comes amid federal changes and budget decisions affecting Medicaid: recent legislative actions and proposed funding shifts have already pressured states to cut services that many people with disabilities rely on.
The DOJ did not respond to requests for an explanation of why it changed course after decades of bipartisan enforcement supporting community integration. For now, the immediate legal effect is uncertain. But disability advocates say the memo signals a potential rollback of protections that made community living the default for millions — and they have vowed to fight efforts that would force people into institutions rather than supporting them to live in their communities.