Children Need Congress and the Administration to Preserve the Promise of Olmstead

For more than a quarter century, the Supreme Court’s decision in Olmstead v. L.C. has helped ensure that children with disabilities can grow up with their families, attend school in their communities, and receive services in the least restrictive setting appropriate to their needs.

That promise is now at tremendous risk.

A recent Department of Justice legal opinion calls into question the longstanding and widely shared understanding of the Americans with Disabilities Act’s “integration mandate”—the requirement that people with disabilities should receive services in the most integrated setting appropriate, rather than being unnecessarily segregated in institutions or other restrictive environments.

The legal finding in Olmstead was that unnecessary institutionalization constituted discrimination under the ADA. But at its core, Olmstead asks a more fundamental and more human question: Should children with disabilities have to leave their families and communities in order to receive the services they need?

For decades, the answer has been “no.”

What Olmstead Means for Children

When the Supreme Court decided Olmstead in 1999, the case involved two adults with psychiatric disabilities who were unnecessarily confined in a state institution. The Court held that unjustified segregation of people with disabilities constitutes discrimination under the ADA.

Although the case involved adults, its impact has extended far beyond them. For children with disabilities, Olmstead has become a powerful safeguard against systems that rely on institutional or segregated settings when community-based alternatives are available. That matters because children with significant disabilities, behavioral health needs, or complex medical conditions have historically been placed in psychiatric residential treatment facilities, residential schools far from home, large group homes, congregate care settings, and other institutional environments that inhibit their development.

In many cases, these placements occur not because they are the best option for the child, but because states have failed to invest in the services that would allow children to remain at home and in their communities. Under the principles established by Olmstead, states have increasingly been expected to provide alternatives, including intensive home-based services, mobile crisis response, family support programs, therapeutic foster care, and other community-based interventions.

The result has been a gradual shift toward serving children where they belong: with their families, in their schools, with their friends, and in their communities. That is what children deserve.

Why This Matters Beyond Disability Policy

The importance of Olmstead extends well beyond disability rights. It affects child welfare systems, Medicaid programs, mental health services, and education policy.

For example, families of children with significant behavioral health needs often face an impossible choice. Without adequate community services, the only way to access intensive treatment may be through placement in a residential facility. Similarly, some families of children with complex medical needs have been forced to relinquish custody or seek institutional placement simply because home- and community-based services are unavailable. Olmstead has forced states to provide alternatives to inadequate institutional settings that underserve children with disabilities.

In education, Olmstead has reinforced efforts to ensure that students with disabilities are not unnecessarily educated in segregated settings when they can be served alongside their peers with appropriate supports. In previous administrations, DOJ has used the ADA’s integration mandate to challenge systems that unnecessarily educate students with disabilities in separate schools or programs. DOJ has asserted that states can’t rely on residential placements simply because they haven’t built adequate community-based supports. And Olmstead works in tandem with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and its “least restrictive environment” requirement to ensure that children can be educated with their peers.

The Threat Posed by DOJ’s New Interpretation

The Department of Justice’s recent legal opinion raises serious concerns because it adopts a significantly narrower view of the ADA’s integration mandate. It could weaken one of the most important tools for challenging unnecessary institutionalization and segregation. In the words of Alison Barkoff, a health law and policy professor at George Washington University who led disability law and policy efforts during both the Obama and Biden administrations, “it is now the position of the United States government that people with disabilities don’t have a right to be part of their communities.”

For children, that means less pressure on states to expand community-based services and greater likelihood that they end up in harmful institutional or congregate settings. The consequences could be particularly significant for children with serious mental health needs, intellectual and developmental disabilities, autism, complex medical conditions, and other disabilities that require intensive supports. Undermining Olmstead – coupled with the other relentless attacks on children with disabilities by this administration and the deep H.R. 1 cuts to Medicaid, which funds many of the programs that support the promise of Olmstead – put children with disabilities at great risk of falling behind and being excluded from settings where they can thrive.

At a time when families across the country already struggle to access behavioral health services, in-home supports, and community-based care, this new opinion moves policy in a harmful and disturbing wrong direction.

Children Deserve to Grow Up in Families and Communities

Children thrive when they can remain connected to their families, schools, friends, and communities. That principle should not be controversial and for more than twenty-five years, Olmstead has helped uphold it.

Congress must reject DOJ’s new interpretation of Olmstead. And particularly as they debate Fiscal Year 2027 funding for DOJ, policymakers should remember what is truly at stake: whether children with disabilities can continue to receive the services they need without sacrificing their place in their families and communities. Every child deserves the opportunity to grow up at home, attend school alongside their friends and classmates, and participate fully in community life. Federal disability policy should support that goal – not undermine it.

The new interpretation of Olmstead – which even the author of the opinion acknowledges is out of step with longheld understanding! – is not a policy that treats our nation’s children like a priority. Help us tell Congress to put children first by becoming a First Focus Ambassador for Children. We’ll tell you what you need to know, what Congress is up to, and how you can be an effective advocate so that your Member of Congress does a better job making kids a priority in federal budget and policy decisions.