Washington, D.C. — The Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel dropped a bombshell memo last week that could upend nearly three decades of disability rights law, and nursing homes are suddenly sitting in the middle of a much bigger political fight.
On June 18, four days before the 27th anniversary of the landmark Olmstead v. L.C. Supreme Court decision, the DOJ’s OLC concluded that the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act do not actually impose “integration mandates” on states. In plain English, the memo says states are not legally required to keep people with disabilities out of institutions like nursing homes, even when they could be served at home or in community settings.
The memo was written by Lanora Pettit, principal deputy assistant attorney general in the OLC, and it arrives at a moment when states are already slashing Medicaid-funded home and community-based services. The timing wasn’t lost on disability advocates, who called it a deliberate attempt to turn back the clock.
What the Memo Actually Says
The OLC memo argues that the 1999 Olmstead decision — which held that unnecessary institutionalization of people with disabilities violates the ADA — did not establish a true mandate for states to move people out of institutions. It also claims Congress never intended to make unnecessary institutionalization illegal when it passed the ADA or Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act in 1973.
Legal experts were quick to push back. The memo doesn’t change existing law or court precedent, and federal courts are still bound by the Olmstead decision. But what it does do is signal the Trump administration’s stance, and several experts told industry sources they expect the DOJ to pull back sharply from enforcing integration claims that have historically moved people out of nursing homes and back into their communities.
Why Nursing Homes Should Care
The memo lands alongside other recent DOJ policy shifts, including a new toolkit for EMTs and law enforcement, but this one cuts in a different direction. If the federal government stops pushing states to expand home and community-based care, more people with disabilities could end up in nursing homes simply because there is no alternative.
That shift would come at a time when states are already reeling from federal Medicaid cuts. Ohio and Maryland are proposing wage cuts for home caregivers, and Idaho briefly considered eliminating all community care programs. Community care is also cheaper than institutional care, according to a 2023 GAO report the memo itself acknowledges.
The memo even concedes that its own interpretation is “out of step with the common understanding” of Olmstead within federal courts. Disability rights advocates say the real danger is that states will use the memo as cover to cut community services further, knowing the DOJ won’t challenge them.
What Happens Next
The memo doesn’t have the force of law, but it carries significant weight within the executive branch. Multiple lawsuits are already in the pipeline, including one filed by Texas that challenges the federal integration mandate directly. If the Supreme Court takes up that case, the Olmstead decision itself could be on the table.
For nursing home operators, the short-term effect is uncertain. More residents could mean more revenue, but it also means a population that may not need or want institutional care. For residents and their families, the stakes are far higher. The memo was released on June 18. By June 22, the disability community was marking the anniversary of a decision that, for now, still stands.
Discover more from Skilled Care Journal
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
