People with disabilities fear a rollback of civil rights protections after the Department of Justice issued a legal opinion in June. The memo suggests federal law does not require states to provide community-based services that allow people with disabilities to live outside institutions. This stance directly contradicts a 1999 Supreme Court ruling that deemed unjustified institutionalization discriminatory.
Advocacy groups warn that the new interpretation could undermine rights for roughly 40 million adults and 5 million children. The Trump administration argues that states have valid reasons for institutional care, including safety concerns and limited community resources. Critics contend the opinion ignores decades of progress toward integration.
The stage is set for a legal battle. States already involved in lawsuits challenging disability rights requirements are citing the DOJ memo to bolster their cases. In Texas, for example, Republican-led states are challenging an HHS rule about the integration mandate, arguing it infringes on state sovereignty and is overly costly. The memo provides a new argument for these plaintiffs.
This legal shift feels like a familiar, painful cycle. The country has a long history of forcing people with disabilities into segregated facilities, a practice rooted in the eugenics movement of the early 20th century. While the current administration frames its approach as a pragmatic solution to resource constraints, it effectively revives the logic that justified locking people away rather than accommodating them in society.
Amanda DeSimone-Shabrack of Virginia worries about her 12-year-old son, Mason, who has high-needs autism. Her home healthcare aide is funded by Medicaid, allowing her to work and care for him. The recent reduction of her son’s care from 30 to 18 hours a week has her questioning her ability to keep him home as he gets older.
Related: Medicaid insurer contracts at stake in governor race
Experts point to the “housing first” approach championed by the Biden administration, which prioritizes stable housing without prerequisites for sobriety or treatment. Trump’s executive order last year reversed this policy, expanding involuntary treatment and institutionalization to address homelessness. The DOJ opinion adds another layer of uncertainty to these changes.
The Department of Health and Human Services maintains that it will continue enforcing civil rights laws. Emily Hilliard, an agency spokesperson, stated that the commitment to treating individuals with dignity remains unchanged. Despite this assurance, disability rights groups fear the opinion will lead to the rescinding of guidance and regulations that mandate integration.
Historically, HHS has enforced compliance through voluntary agreements. Disability rights experts worry these agreements could now be imperiled. Additionally, the reorganization of special education programs from the Department of Education to HHS raises concerns that the administration views disabilities as a medical issue to be fixed rather than differences to be accommodated.
For Jennifer Kucera of Cleveland, the potential rollback is terrifying. Diagnosed with spinal muscular atrophy, she spent two years in a nursing home before moving into an apartment with Medicaid-funded caregivers. She described the institution as the “most horrible time in my life” and fears that the administration’s policies could strip her of the autonomy she has built.
