Update on Responses to DOJ Memo on the Olmstead Decision

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) issued a memorandum on June 18, 2026  https://www.justice.gov/olc/media/1446701/dl on how the federal government intends to approach community integration for people with disabilities.  This NCMHA blog provides an update on responses from states and national organizations.

The Olmstead v. L.C. (1999) Supreme Court decision is enforced primarily as a constitutional/civil rights mandate under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.  States have responded through executive orders, legislative task forces, and comprehensive Olmstead Plans to transition individuals into community-based settings. 

State Actions and Compliance Methods

• Legislative Committees and Task Forces: By 2003, 42 states had created a legislative Olmstead committee, planning commission, or interagency task force to evaluate institutional populations and design community integration frameworks.  References:

1. National Council on Disability | Olmstead: Reclaiming Institutionalized Lives

2. Where We are on the Twentieth Anniversary of Olmstead v. L.C. | Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law

• Executive Orders: Governors in states such as Missouri have issued executive orders to manage state-level commissions for Olmstead compliance plans. 

Reference: The Olmstead Fact Sheet | dmh.mo.gov

• Budgetary and Medicaid Shifts: States such as Kentucky integrated Olmstead compliance directly into state appropriations acts and Medicaid waiver programs to shift resources from state institutions to local communities.  Reference: The Olmstead Decision – Why it Matters in Kentucky – Human Development Institute

• Consent Decrees – Illinois’ policy remains steady because of three active federal consent decrees: IDHS: Olmstead Consent Decrees.

• State Agency Responses: Individual state entities—such as the New York State Office of Mental Health (OMH) via Commissioner Ann Sullivan—publicly clarified that the DOJ memo is not legally binding and that state agencies remain committed to community-based services consistent with federal and state law.  Reference:

Commissioner Statement regarding DOJ’s Memo on Olmstead v. L.C

Responses from National Organizations

• ADvancing States Engagement: ADvancing States (which represents state aging and disability agency directors) has collaborated on resources and addressed the DOJ’s shift in federal interpretation of the ADA’s integration mandate, including discussions at major national forums like the ADvancing States HCBS Conference. [

References:

1. The Olmstead Memo changed the conversation, not the evidence
2. From Our Friends — Helen: The Journal of Human Exceptionality
3. National Disability Policy: A Progress Report, 2026

• The “Statement for States”: Leading disability rights organizations (such as the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law and the Alliance for Rights and Recovery) launched a formal “Statement for States” calling on governors and state attorneys general to publicly reject the DOJ’s narrower reading of Olmstead and reaffirm state commitments to home- and community-based services (HCBS). [1, 2,]

References:

1. BREAKING: Calling on New York and Other States to Stand Up for Olmstead and Community Integration! Register for Alliance Conference Today to Join the Conversation! – The Alliance for Rights and Recovery
2. Bazelon Center: Background-on-the-Statement-for-States.pdf

• Bipartisan Governors’ Letter: Around the time of the memo’s release in June 2026, a group of 18 governors issued a bipartisan letter urging the DOJ not to retreat from Olmstead v. L.C. and the integration mandate.

• The National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) has not issued a formal, dedicated public statement or standalone reaction specifically targeting the DOJ Memo.  NCSL’s official publications have historically focused on tracking broader state legislative intersections with Olmstead and Title II of the ADA litigation, competence-to-stand-trial waitlists, and health integration models rather than weighing in on this specific federal legal opinion. 

Congressional Resolution

On 6-24-26, US Senator Duckworth (D-IL) introduced a congressional resolution CR S3216-3217  BILLS-119sres790is.pdf  urging the Department of Justice to rescind the memo, asserting that rolling back integration mandates is “inhumane” and that community-based care is far more cost-effective than institutionalization.   Sen. Duckworth was joined by Senators Durbin, Sanders, Wyden, Gillibrand, Murray, Blumenthal, VanHollen, Markey, Bennet, Lujan, Kim, Hassan, and Rochester.